H/T DEONTOS

In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
No. 11-1423

LORI WIGOD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Defendant-Appellee.

<excerpts>

HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. We are asked in this appeal

to determine whether Lori Wigod has stated claims

under Illinois law against her home mortgage servicer

for refusing to modify her loan pursuant to the federal

Home Affordable Mortgage Program (HAMP).

—

She brought this putative class action alleging violations

of Illinois law under common-law contract and tort

theories and under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and

Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA). The district

court dismissed the complaint in its entirety under

Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

—

This appeal followed, and it presents two sets of issues.

The first set of issues concerns whether Wigod

has stated viable claims under Illinois common law and

the ICFA. We conclude that she has on four counts …

—

These allegations support garden-variety

claims for breach of contract or promissory estoppel.

She has also plausibly alleged that Wells Fargo com-

mitted fraud under Illinois common law and engaged in

unfair or deceptive business practices in violation of the

ICFA.

—

The second set of issues concerns whether these

state-law claims are preempted or otherwise barred by

federal law. We hold that they are not.

—

We accordingly reverse the judgment of

the district court on the contract, promissory estoppel,

fraudulent misrepresentation, and ICFA claims …

—

IV. Conclusion

The judgment of the district court is therefore

REVERSEDas to Counts I, II, and VII, and the

fraudulent misrepresentation claim of Count V …

—

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge, concurring. I am very pleased

to join the excellent opinion of the court written by

Judge Hamilton. I write separately only to note that, in

my view, our task of adjudicating this matter would

have been assisted significantly if the United States had

entered this case as an amicus curiae.

—

In this case, this last consideration justifies the

decision to proceed without further delay. Prompt resolution

of this matter is necessary not only for the good

of the litigants but for the good of the Country.

In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit

No. 09-2182

SAUL H. CATALAN and MIA MORRIS,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
GMAC MORTGAGE CORP.,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 05 C 6920—George W. Lindberg, Judge.
ARGUED FEBRUARY 12, 2010—DECIDED JANUARY 10, 2011

Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, HAMILTON, Circuit
Judge, and SPRINGMANN, District Judge..

HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs Saul H. Catalan and Mia Morris sued defendants RBC Mortgage Company and GMAC Mortgage Company under the federal RealEstate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq., and under Illinois law for gross negligence, breach of contract, and willful and wanton negligence. The district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ gross negligence claim as merely duplicating the willful and wanton negligence claim. The court granted summary judgment to GMAC Mortgage on the plaintiffs’ RESPA, breach of contract, and remaining negligence claims. The plaintiffs appeal those decisions. We reverse the grant of summary judgment for GMAC Mortgage on the plaintiffs’ RESPA and breach of contract claims, and we affirm summary judgment on their negligence claims.1

Continue below…

[ipaper docId=46657736 access_key=key-1no0q0mzys1smc5m545b height=600 width=600 /]