Consumer Finance Litigation
On October 22, 2013, in Bushell v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., the California Court of Appeal for the Third District (Placer, California) reversed a trial court's order sustaining the demurrer of defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. ("Chase"), without leave to amend, and ordered the case remanded with instructions to overrule the demurrer. The Court held that a trial period plan under the Home Affordable Modification Program ("HAMP") may constitute an actionable promise for purposes of causes of action sounding in contract and fraud.
In Bushell, Chase offered the borrowers a Trial Period Plan ("TPP") under HAMP in May 2009. The TPP required the borrowers to submit documents and make four trial payments and, if the borrowers otherwise complied with the terms of the TPP, Chase would modify their loan. According to the allegations of the first amended complaint, the borrowers submitted all documents as requested by Chase and made a total of 26 trial modification payments between June 2009 and August 2011, but were denied a permanent loan modification on the stated basis that the investor did not approve of the modification. The borrowers then filed a lawsuit against Chase in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Placer, and...
