Schaefer v. IndyMac Mortgage Services, 1st Cir. (2013)

7/26/2019 Schaefer v. IndyMac Mortgage Services, 1st Cir. (2013)

1/22

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 12- 2388 MARK E. SCHAEFER,

Pl ai nt i f f , Appel l ant ,

v.

I NDYMAC MORTGAGE SERVI CES,ONE WEST BANK, FSB,

FEDERAL NATI ONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCI ATI ON,and HARMON LAW OFFI CES, P. C. ,

Def endant s, Appel l ees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

FOR THE DI STRI CT OF NEW HAMPSHI RE

[ Hon. J oseph A. Di Cl er i co, J r . , U. S. Di str i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Tor r uel l a, Dyk, * and Kayat t a,Ci r cui t J udges.

Wal t er L. Mar oney f or appel l ant .Thomas R. Laval l ee, wi t h whomHar mon Law Of f i ces, P. C. , was on

br i ef , f or appel l ees.

Oct ober 2, 2013

*Of t he Feder al Ci r cui t , si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.


2/22

DYK, Circuit Judge. Pl ai nt i f f Mar k E. Schaef er appeal s f r om

t he deci si on of t he Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct Cour t f or t he Di st r i ct

of New Hampshi r e di smi ssi ng hi s sui t agai nst def endant s I ndyMac

Mor t gage Servi ces; OneWest Bank, FSB; t he Federal Nat i onal Mor t gage

Associ at i on ( Fanni e Mae) ; and Harmon Law Of f i ces, P. C.

( Har mon) . Schaef er s compl ai nt sought an i nj unct i on bar r i ng hi s

i mpendi ng evi ct i on; an or der nul l i f yi ng the Mar ch 2012 f or ecl osur e

sal e of hi s home and r equi r i ng t he def endant s t o al l ow hi m t o

modi f y or r ei nst at e hi s mor t gage; and monet ary damages.

The di st r i ct cour t f ound t hat Schaef er s cl ai ms wer e bar r ed by

t he economi c l oss doct r i ne, and di smi ssed hi s compl ai nt f or f ai l ur e

t o st at e a cl ai m. See Schaef er v. I ndyMac Mor t g. Ser vs. , No. 12-

cv- 159, 2012 WL 4929094, at *3- *6 ( D. N. H. Oct . 16, 2012) ,

r econsi derat i on deni ed, 2012 WL 6113973 ( D. N. H. Dec. 10, 2012) . We

af f i r m.

I.

A.

The f ol l owi ng f act s, whi ch ar e al l eged i n Schaef er s

compl ai nt , ar e accept ed as t r ue f or pur poses of t he mot i on t o

di smi ss. See Mass. Ret . Sys. v. CVS Caremark Corp. , 716 F. 3d 229,

231, 237 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) .

I n November 2007, Schaef er r ef i nanced hi s home mor t gage, and

ent ered i nt o a r ef i nanci ng l oan and mor t gage agr eement wi t h I ndyMac

Bank, FSB. Under t he t erms of t he l oan and mor t gage agr eement ,

- 2-


3/22

Schaef er was r equi r ed t o make regul ar mont hl y payment s, and I ndyMac

Bank was al l owed t o accel er at e t he pr i nci pal and t o f orecl ose on

t he mort gage i n t he event t hat Schaef er f el l behi nd on hi s

payment s. 1 The mor t gage agr eement al so gave Schaef er t he r i ght t o

r ei nst ate t he mort gage bef ore f orecl osur e upon payment of past due

amount s, penal t i es, i nt er est , and f ees. I n t hi s l i t i gat i on,

Schaef er al l eges t hat I ndyMac or i t s successor s subsequent l y

under t ook t wo addi t i onal dut i es beyond t he scope of t he cont r act

t hat r est r i cted t hei r r i ght t o f or ecl ose: ( 1) a dut y t o pr ovi de hi m

wi t h a rei nst at ement amount i n t he event t hat he f el l i nt o ar r ear s,

and ( 2) a dut y t o pr ocess an appl i cat i on f or l oan modi f i cat i on

bef or e f or ecl osur e.

At some t i me af t er November 2007, I ndyMac Bank ass i gned t he

mor t gage t o i t s cor por at e par ent , OneWest Bank. The mor t gage was

servi ced by I ndyMac Mort gage Ser vi ces, whi ch, l i ke I ndyMac Bank, i s

now a subsi di ary of OneWest Bank. We r ef er t o al l t hr ee

ent i t i esI ndyMac Bank, I ndyMac Mor t gage Servi ces, and OneWest

Bankas OneWest .

1 The mor t gage document was not at t ached t o t he compl ai ntbut was submi t t ed t o t he di st r i ct cour t by t he appel l ees. Whi l edocument s not at t ached t o t he compl ai nt are ordi nar i l y excl udedf r om consi der at i on on a mot i on t o di smi ss, see Fed. R. Ci v. P.

12( d) , t hey may be consul t ed i f t he[ i r ] aut hent i ci t y . . . [ i s]not di sput ed by t he par t i es, t hey ar e cent r al t o [ t he]pl ai nt i f f [ s] c l ai m, or t hey ar e suf f i ci ent l y r ef er r ed t o i n t hecompl ai nt , Wat t er son v. Page, 987 F. 2d 1, 3- 4 ( ci t i ng cases) . Seegener al l y 5B Char l es Al an Wr i ght & Ar t hur R. Mi l l er , Feder alPr act i ce and Pr ocedur e 1357 ( 3d ed. 2004) . The mor t gage documentf al l s i nt o t hi s cat egor y.

- 3-


4/22

Schaef er def aul t ed on t he l oan i n 2009, af t er whi ch OneWest

agr eed t o modi f y the l oan.

I n l at e 2011, Schaef er agai n f el l behi nd on hi s mor t gage

payment s. On J anuar y 19, 2012, Schaef er r ecei ved a l et t er f r om

OneWest ( t he J anuar y 19 l et t er ) i nf or mi ng hi m t hat hi s l oan

account was 6 [ p] ayment s [ p] ast [ d] ue. See Schaef er Br . addendum

27. The l et t er speci f i ed a [ t ] ot al [ a] mount [ d] ue of $12, 519. 25,

and i ndi cat ed t hat af t er Febr uar y 16, a [ f ] ee [ a] ssessment woul d

be added, br i ngi ng t he t ot al t o $12, 572. 46. I d. The l et t er di d

not r ef er t o ei t her amount as a r ei nst atement amount , and di d not

i ncl ude speci f i c l i ne i t ems f or f ur t her accr ui ng i nt er est , cost s,

at t or ney s f ees, or ot her i t ems t hat Schaef er al l eges ar e

t ypi cal l y i ncl uded as addi t i ons t o an ar r ear age t o est abl i sh an

actual r ei nst atement amount . I d. at 6- 7. Ar ound t he same t i me,

Schaef er downl oaded f r om OneWest s websi t e a compr ehensi ve

mor t gage modi f i cat i on appl i cat i on. I d. at 6.

On J anuary 30, Schaef er r ecei ved a l et t er f r omHarmon, counsel

t o OneWest , i nf ormi ng hi mt hat Harmon had been i nst r uct ed to br i ng

a f or ecl osur e because Schaef er was i n br each of t he condi t i ons of

t he l oan document s. See i d. at 21. Thi s l et t er st at ed t hat t he

l oan was her eby accel er at ed, wi t h t he ent i r e bal ance of

$246, 992. 57 due and payabl e f or t hwi t h and wi t hout f ur t her not i ce.

I d. The l et t er al so i nf or med Schaef er t hat [ e] ven t hough t he not e

has been accel er at ed, [ he] may st i l l have t he ri ght t o rei nst at e

- 4-


5/22

t he l oan. I d. The l et t er di d not i ncl ude a r ei nst at ement amount ,

but di r ect ed Schaef er t o t he f i r m s websi t e or t el ephone number i n

or der t o r equest a r ei nst at ement [ amount ] . I d.

Schaef er r equest ed a r ei nst atement amount f r om Harmon s

websi t e on Febr uar y 6 and agai n on Febr uar y 16. On each occasi on,

he recei ved t he f ol l owi ng ( seemi ngl y aut omat ed) not i ce:

Your r equest has been r ecei ved. We wi l l f or war d t her ei nst at ement . . . i nf or mat i on t o you when i t i sobt ai ned f r om your l ender or ser vi cer or t he l ender orser vi cer wi l l send t hi s i nf or mat i on t o you di r ect l y.

. . . .

Unl ess t her e i s an i mmi nent sal e, pl ease wai t 5busi ness days bef or e f ol l owi ng up wi t h us onr ei nst at ement s . . . . You may f ol l ow up by cont act i ngus at . . . .

We wi l l get back t o you wi t hi n 24 hour s wi t h ast atus of your pendi ng request .

I d. at 24, 25. Schaef er al l eges t hat nei t her Harmon nor OneWest

ever cont act ed hi m wi t h a r ei nst atement amount ; Schaef er di d not

at t empt t o f ol l ow up on hi s r equest s f or a rei nst atement amount by

cont act i ng OneWest .

On Febr uar y 14, Schaef er r ecei ved a f or ecl osur e not i ce f r om

Harmon, i nf ormi ng hi m t hat a f orecl osur e sal e woul d occur on March

12. 2

2 The not i ce i dent i f i ed Fanni e Mae as t he "present hol derof [ t he m] or t gage. " I d. at 28. Accor di ng t o document s f i l ed byt he def endant s bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t , Fanni e Mae r ecei ved t hemort gage by assi gnment f r om OneWest on J anuary 26, 2012, whi l er et ai ni ng OneWest as t he mor t gage servi cer . The i dent i t y of t hemor t gage hol der i s not at i ssue i n t hi s appeal . See Schaef er , 2012WL 4929094, at *3 n. 4.

- 5-


6/22

Two days l at er , Schaef er f axed OneWest a compl et ed appl i cat i on

f or a l oan modi f i cat i on. He t el ephoned OneWest t hr ee days

t her eaf t er , and was t ol d by a OneWest r epr esent at i ve t o resend part

of hi s appl i cat i on, whi ch he pr ompt l y di d.

On Febr uary 23, a OneWest r epr esent at i ve cont act ed Schaef er

and asked f or addi t i onal i nf or mat i on r egar di ng Schaef er s par t ner ,

Kat hr yn Russel l , whom Schaef er had l i st ed as a f ut ur e cont r i but or

t o hi s mor t gage payment s. Schaef er was i nst r uct ed t o f ax Russel l s

f i nanci al i nf or mat i on t o ( 866) 235- 2366 ( t he 235 f ax number ) .

At about t he same t i me t hat t he OneWest r epr esent at i ve

i nst r uct ed Schaef er t o send Russel l s i nf or mat i on t o t he 235 f ax

number , Schaef er r ecei ved a l et t er f r om a cust omer cont act

manager at OneWest named El i zabet h Mi l i an ( t he Mi l i an l et t er ) .

I d. at 32. The Mi l i an l et t er st at ed t hat Mi l i an and her t eam,

whi ch i ncl uded l oan modi f i cat i on under wr i t er s, woul d be

[ Schaef er s] poi nt of cont act t hr oughout t hi s pr ocess, and t hat

ei t her [ Mi l i an] , or a r epr esent at i ve f r om [ her ] t eam, [ woul d] be

avai l abl e to answer any quest i ons [ he] may have whi l e [hi s] l oan

[ was] bei ng r evi ewed. I d. The l et t er pr ovi ded Mi l i an s cont act

i nf or mat i on, i ncl udi ng a f ax number : ( 866) 435- 7643 ( t he 435 f ax

number ) . I d. The l et t er cl osed by expr essi ng Mi l i an s i nt ent t o

pr ovi de t i mel y and accurat e communi cat i on between [ Schaef er] and

[ OneWest ] , and by i ndi cat i ng t hat once he had submi t t ed a

compl et ed appl i cat i on, Mi l i an s t eam woul d i ni t i at e t he r evi ew

- 6-


7/22


8/22

modi f i cat i on appl i cat i on, and negl i gent mi sr epr esent at i on, ar i si ng

f r om t he al l egedl y mi sl eadi ng Mi l i an l et t er . 4 As r el i ef , Schaef er

sought an i nj unct i on agai nst t he pendi ng evi ct i on, an or der

nul l i f yi ng t he f or ecl osur e sal e and r equi r i ng t he def endant s t o

al l ow hi m t o modi f y or r ei nst at e hi s mor t gage, and compensat or y

damages f or t he l oss of hi s home of 28 year s and any and al l

equi t y t her ei n. I d. at 11- 13, 18. I n ot her wor ds, Schaef er s

cent r al cl ai m was t hat OneWest and Fanni e Mae coul d not exer ci se

t hei r r i ght t o f or ecl ose under t he mor t gage cont r act .

The def endant s r emoved t he case t o t he Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct

Cour t f or t he Di st r i ct of New Hampshi r e on t he basi s of di ver si t y

of ci t i zenshi p. See 28 U. S. C. 1332, 1441. The def endant s f i l ed

mot i ons t o di smi ss under Rul e 12( b) ( 6) of t he Feder al Rul es of

Ci vi l Pr ocedur e, ar gui ng bot h t hat Schaef er s t or t cl ai ms wer e

bar r ed by t he economi c l oss doct r i ne and t hat t he cl ai ms f ai l ed

because t he def endants had not breached any dut i es owed t o

Schaef er .

The di st r i ct cour t grant ed t he def endant s mot i ons t o di smi ss.

The cour t f i r st r ej ect ed Schaef er s ar gument t hat t he economi c l oss

4 Schaef er al so asser t ed a cl ai m f or i nt ent i onalmi sr epr esent at i on, ar i si ng f r om t he same f act s as t he negl i gentmi sr epr esent at i on cl ai m, and a cl ai mf or br each of t he cont r act ual

dut y of good f ai t h and f ai r deal i ng, ar i si ng f r om t he def endant s'f ai l ur e t o del ay t he f or ecl osur e whi l e r evi ewi ng hi s r equest f ormodi f i cat i on. Nei t her of t hese cl ai ms i s pr esent ed on appeal .Schaef er has abandoned hi s cont r act cl ai m, and he of f er s nodevel oped ar gument at i on wi t h r espect t o hi s i nt ent i onalmi sr epr esent at i on cl ai m, whi ch we deemt o be abandoned. See, e. g. ,I n r e Redondo Const r . Cor p. , 678 F. 3d 115, 126 n. 7 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) .

- 8-


9/22

doct r i ne does not appl y t o cl ai ms seeki ng i nj unct i ve r el i ef ,

hol di ng t hat because t he har m al l eged i n t he compl ai nt i s

economi c, consi st i ng of t he l oss of hi s pr oper t y and t he equi t y

he hel d i n t he pr oper t y, t he doct r i ne appl i es wi t hout r egar d t o

t he f or mof r el i ef sought . Schaef er , 2012 WL 4929094, at *3 & n. 5.

The cour t went on t o f i nd t hat none of t he t or t cl ai ms f el l wi t hi n

any except i on t o t he economi c l oss doct r i ne recogni zed by t he New

Hampshi r e cour t s. I d. at *4- 5. The cour t di smi ssed t he negl i gence

cl ai m, hol di ng t hat Schaef er [ had not ] al l eged f act s or devel oped

an argument suf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh t hat OneWest assumed dut i es

based on Har mon s [ J anuar y 30] l et t er or t he Mi l i an Let t er . I d.

at *4. Regar di ng t he negl i gent mi sr epr esent at i on cl ai m, t he cour t

concl uded t hat t he subj ect mat t er of t he Mi l i an l et t er r el at e[ d]

ent i r el y t o [ t he] def endant s at t empt s t o col l ect [ Schaef er s]

mor t gage debt , and t hat any cl ai m r el at ed t o t hat l et t er was

t her ef or e bar r ed by t he economi c l oss doct r i ne. I d. at *4- *5

( second and t hi r d al t er at i ons i n or i gi nal , quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) .

Schaef er appeal ed. We have j ur i sdi ct i on under 28 U. S. C.

1291. We r evi ew de novo an order di smi ss i ng a cl ai m under Rul e

12( b) ( 6) . See Mass. Ret . Sys. , 716 F. 3d at 237.

II.

The economi c l oss doct r i ne i s a common- l aw doct r i ne accor di ng

t o whi ch part i es bound by a cont r act may not pur su[ e] t or t

- 9-


10/22

r ecover y f or pur el y economi c or commer ci al l osses associ ated wi t h

t he cont r act r el at i onshi p. See Pl our de Sand & Gr avel Co. v. J GI

E. , I nc. , 917 A. 2d 1250, 1253 ( N. H. 2007) ( quot i ng Ti et swor t h v.

Har l ey- Davi dson, I nc. , 677 N. W. 2d 233, 241 ( Wi s. 2004) , f ur t her

pr oceedi ngs at 735 N. W. 2d 418 ( Wi s. 2007) ) . The pur pose of t he

doct r i ne i s t o pr event t or t l aw s unr easonabl e i nt er f er ence wi t h

pr i nci pl es of cont r act l aw. See i d. at 1254.

I n i t s br oadest f or m, t he doct r i ne r eaches beyond t he

cont r act ual cont ext , and pr ovi des t hat a pl ai nt i f f may not . . .

r ecover i n a negl i gence cl ai mf or pur el y economi c l oss. See i d.

at 1253- 54 ( quot i ng Border Br ook Ter r ace Condo. Ass n v. Gl adst one,

622 A. 2d 1248, 1253 ( N. H. 1993) ) ; see al so Kel l eher v. Marvi n

Lumber & Cedar Co. , 891 A. 2d 477, 495 ( N. H. 2005) ( We have . . .

r ecogni zed t hat a pl ai nt i f f may not or di nar i l y recover damages f or

pur el y economi c l oss i n t or t . . . . ) . I n ot her wor ds, t he

doct r i ne hol ds t hat , i n t he absence of a speci f i c dut y, no gener al

dut y exi st s t o avoi d negl i gent l y causi ng economi c l oss. Thi s

ver si on of t he doct r i ne has been adopt ed i n New Hampshi r e. As t he

New Hampshi r e Supr eme Cour t has st at ed, [ i ] n New Hampshi r e, t he

gener al r ul e i s t hat per sons must r ef r ai n f r om causi ng per sonal

i nj ur y and pr oper t y damage t o thi r d par t i es, but no cor r espondi ng

t or t dut y exi st s wi t h r espect t o economi c l oss. See Pl our de, 917

A. 2d at 1254 ( quotat i on marks omi t t ed) . However , t hi s br oad

- 10-


11/22

doct r i ne has except i ons. 5

The gravamen of Schaef er s ar gument i s t hat New Hampshi r e l aw

. . . r ecogni zes an except i on t o t he economi c l oss doct r i ne f or

[ vol unt ar i l y] assumed dut i es ext r i nsi c t o t he cent r al i ssues of a

cont r act , and t hat t he def endant s assumed such a gr atui t ous,

ext r a- cont r act ual dut y to pr ovi de hi m a r ei nst at ement amount and

consi der hi s appl i cat i on t o modi f y t he mor t gage f ol l owi ng hi s

def aul t . See Schaef er Br . 18- 21.

The New Hampshi r e Supreme Cour t has l ong f ol l owed t he gui dance

of t he Rest at ement of Tor t s concer ni ng i ssues of t or t l aw

gener al l y. 6 The Second Rest at ement of Tor t s does not di scuss t he

5 One such except i on, r ecogni zed i n New Hampshi r e anddi scussed bel ow, appl i es t o cer t ai n cl ai ms f or negl i gentmi sr epr esent at i on. See i d. at 1254, 1257- 58; Wyl e v. Lees, 33 A. 3d1187, 1191- 92 ( N. H. 2011) . Another except i on appl i es t omal pr act i ce- l i ke cl ai ms based on the br each of ext r a- cont r act ualdut i es ar i si ng f r omt he qual i f i cat i ons of l i censed pr of essi onal s.See Congr egat i on of t he Passi on v. Touche Ross & Co. , 636 N. E. 2d

503, 514- 15 ( I l l . 1994) ; Far mer s Al l i ance Mut . I ns. Co. v. Nayl or ,452 F. Supp. 2d 1167, 1174 ( D. N. M. 2006) ; see al so Mehi gan v.Sheehan, 51 A. 2d 632 ( N. H. 1947) ( di scussi ng t he r el at i onshi pbet ween mal pr act i ce and cont r act l aw, i n a case i nvol vi ngnon- economi c l osses) . New Hampshi r e al so r ecogni zes an except i onf or negl i gence cl ai ms brought agai nst def endant s who bear a"speci al r el at i onshi p" t o t he pl ai nt i f f , such as the r el at i onshi pbet ween an at t or ney dr af t i ng a wi l l and t he i nt ended benef i ci ar y oft hat wi l l . See Pl our de, 917 A. 2d at 1254- 55. No such speci alr el at i onshi p was al l eged t o exi st i n t hi s case.

6 See, e. g. , Remsbur g v. Docusear ch, I nc. , 816 A. 2d 1001,1009 ( N. H. 2003) ( adopt i ng Rest at ement ( Second) of Tor t s 652C

( 1977) ) ; Val ent i v. NET Pr ops. Mgmt . , 710 A. 2d 399, 401 ( N. H. 1998)( adopt i ng Rest at ement ( Second) 425) ; Long v. Long, 611 A. 2d 620,623 ( N. H. 1992) ( adopt i ng Rest at ement ( Second) 682) ; Spherex,I nc. v. Al exander Gr ant & Co. , 451 A. 2d 1308, 1312 ( N. H. 1982)( adopt i ng Rest at ement ( Second) 552) ; But t r i ck v. Ar t hur Lessar d& Sons, I nc. , 260 A. 2d 111, 113- 14 ( N. H. 1969) ( adopt i ngRest at ement ( Second) of Tor t s 402A ( 1965) ) .

- 11-


12/22

quest i on of a def endant s l i abi l i t y f or economi c l oss r esul t i ng

f r om t he br each of an assumed dut y, but does r ecogni ze t hat under

cer t ai n ci r cumst ances, [ o] ne who under t akes, gr at ui t ousl y . . . ,

t o r ender ser vi ces to anot her . . . i s subj ect t o l i abi l i t y . . .

f or physi cal har mr esul t i ng f r omhi s f ai l ur e t o exer ci se r easonabl e

car e t o per f or m hi s under t aki ng. See Rest at ement ( Second) of

Tor t s 323 ( 1965) ( emphasi s added) ; see al so i d. 324A

( addr essi ng t hi r d- par t y har m i n si mi l ar t er ms) . The New Hampshi r e

Supr eme Cour t f ol l ows t hi s r ul e i n physi cal - i nj ur y cases. 7

Whi l e t he Rest atement does not expl i ci t l y addr ess whether

economi c l osses, as opposed t o l osses r esul t i ng f r om physi cal

i nj ur y, ar e r ecover abl e f or t he br each of a vol unt ar i l y assumed

dut y, cour t s i n a l ar ge number of j ur i sdi ct i ons have r ead t he

r ef er ences t o physi cal harm i n 323 and 324A of t he

Rest at ement as af f i r mat i vel y pr ecl udi ng recover y f or economi c

l osses i n such cases. 8 A smal l er number of cour t s, by cont r ast ,

7 See, e. g. , Trul l v. Town of Conway, 669 A. 2d 807, 810( N. H. 1995) ; Wal l s v. Oxf ord Mgmt . Co. , 633 A. 2d 103, 105 ( N. H.1993) ; Cor son v. Li ber t y Mut . I ns. Co. , 265 A. 2d 315, 318- 19 ( N. H.1970) ; Tul l gr en v. Amoskeag Mf g. Co. , 133 A. 4, 5- 6 ( N. H. 1926) ;see al so 323 i l l us. 1 & r epor t er s not es ( ci t i ng Tul l gr en asi l l ust r at i ng t he Rest at ement s rul e) .

8 See, e. g. , Shaner v. Uni t ed St at es, 976 F. 2d 990, 994( 6t h Ci r . 1992) ; Love v. Uni t ed St at es, 915 F. 2d 1242, 1248 ( 9t hCi r . 1989) ; Fi el dwor k Bos. , I nc. v. Uni t ed St at es, 344 F. Supp. 2d

257, 264 ( D. Mass. 2004) ; Ass n of Wash. Pub. Hosp. Di st s. v.Phi l i p Morr i s, I nc. , 79 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1228 ( W. D. Wash. 1999) ;Or . Labor er s- Emp r s Heal t h & Wel f ar e Tr ust Fund v. Phi l i p Morr i s,I nc. , 17 F. Supp. 2d 1170, 1182- 1183 ( D. Or . 1998) ; Fel t on v.Schaef f er , 229 Cal . App. 3d 229, 237- 38 ( 1991) ; Roj as Concr et e,I nc. v. Fl ood Test i ng Labs. , I nc. , 941 N. E. 2d 940, 946- 47 ( I l l .App. Ct . 2010) ; Thei sen v. Covenant Med. Ct r . , 636 N. W. 2d 74, 82- 83

- 12-


13/22

have hel d t hat 323 and 324A do not l i mi t l i abi l i t y f or t he

br each of an assumed dut y, and that economi c l osses ar e recover abl e

i n such cases as wel l , at l east under some ci r cumst ances. 9

The l aw i n New Hampshi r e i s not ent i r el y cl ear on t hi s

quest i on. I n one case pr edat i ng t he adopt i on of t he cur r ent

Rest atement of Tor t s, Br unel l e v. Nashua Bui l di ng and Loan

Associ at i on, 64 A. 2d 315 ( N. H. 1949) , t he New Hampshi r e Supr eme

Cour t hel d t hat t he def endant , a sel l er of r eal est at e, coul d be

hel d l i abl e i n t or t f or br eachi ng i t s agent s separ at e or al

under t aki ng t o see t o i t t hat [ t he pl ai nt i f f s] r ecei ved a good

t i t l e, even t hough t he def endant s cont r act ual obl i gat i ons di d not

ext end so f ar . I d. at 317 ( syl l abus) ; see al so i d. at 318

( opi ni on) . More r ecent l y, i n Seymour v. New Hampshi r e Savi ngs

Bank, 561 A. 2d 1053 ( N. H. 1989) , t he cour t r ef er r ed t o t he

pr evai l i ng r ul e accor di ng t o whi ch no [ t or t ] dut y i s i mposed upon

a l ender . . . t o exer ci se r easonabl e car e i n i t s i nspect i on of t he

( I owa 2001) ; Long v. Ni l es Co. , 2010 Mass. App. Di v. 43, 46 n. 5( Mass. Di st . Ct . App. Di v. 2010) ; Nor t hf i el d I ns. Co. v. St . PaulSur pl us Li nes I ns. Co. , 545 N. W. 2d 57, 62- 63 ( Mi nn. Ct . App. 1996) ;Car l ot t i v. Emps. of GE Fed. Cr edi t Uni on No. 1161, 717 A. 2d 564,566- 67 ( Pa. Super . Ct . 1998) ( ci t i ng conf l i ct i ng aut hor i t y) ; Ki ngv. Gr aham Hol di ng Co. , 762 S. W. 2d 296, 299- 300 ( Tex. App. 1988) ;Hat l eberg v. Norwest Bank Wi s. , 700 N. W. 2d 15, 23- 24 ( Wi s. 2005) .

9 See, e. g. , Rudol ph v. Fi r st S. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass' n,414 So. 2d 64, 71 ( Al a. 1982) ; Ll oyd v. St at e Far m Mut . Aut o. I ns.

Co. , 860 P. 2d 1300, 1303 ( Ar i z. Ct . App. 1992) ; Ci t y & Cnt y. ofS. F. v. Phi l i p Mor r i s, I nc. , 957 F. Supp. 1130, 1143- 44 ( N. D. Cal .1997) ; Bl ackmon v. Nel son, Hesse, Cyr i l , Weber & Spar r ow, 419 So.2d 405, 406 ( Fl a. Di st . Ct . App. 1982) ( per cur i am) ; Runde v. Vi gusReal t y, I nc. , 617 N. E. 2d 572, 575 ( I nd. Ct . App. 1993) ; Schwar t z v.Gr eenf i el d, St ei n & Wei si nger , 396 N. Y. S. 2d 582, 584- 85 ( N. Y. Sup.Ct . 1977) .

- 13-


14/22

bor r ower s pr emi ses . . . unl ess t he l ender vol unt ar i l y under t akes

t o per f or m such i nspect i on . . . f or t he benef i t of t he bor r ower ,

see i d. at 1056- 57 ( emphasi s added, quotat i on marks omi t t ed) , t hus

per haps suggest i ng t hat a def endant may be hel d l i abl e f or economi c

l osses r esul t i ng f r om t he f ai l ur e t o conduct such i nspect i ons i f

t he def endant had i n f act vol unt ar i l y assumed a dut y t o conduct

t hem.

Even i f we were to assume t hat t he hol di ng i n Br unel l e and the

di ct um i n Seymour pl ace New Hampshi r e i n the camp of st at es t hat

extend 323 and 324A t o economi c l osses r esul t i ng f r om t he

br each of an assumed dut y i n some ci r cumst ances, we woul d st i l l

concl ude that Schaef er has not st at ed a negl i gence cl ai m on whi ch

r el i ef may be gr ant ed.

The par t i es appear t o agree on what i s appar ent f r omt he f ace

of t he mor t gage agreement t hat Schaef er was obl i gat ed t o make

r egul ar mont hl y payment s and t hat , i f he f ai l ed t o do so, OneWest

and Fanni e Mae had a r i ght t o accel er ate the l oan and f orecl ose on

t he mor t gage. The part i es al so agr ee t hat Schaef er di d not make

t he r equi r ed payment s. The mor t gage agr eement provi ded as wel l

t hat i n t he event of Schaef er s def aul t OneWest woul d di scont i nue

f or ecl osure pr oceedi ngs and r ei nst at e t he mor t gage i f Schaef er pai d

hi s arr ears pl us any expenses i ncur r ed by OneWest wi t hi n a

pr escr i bed per i od of t i me. Schaef er al l eges t hat t he def endant s

addi t i onal l y under t ook t wo dut i es: ( 1) t o pr ovi de hi m wi t h a

- 14-


15/22

r ei nst at ement amount i f Schaef er f el l i nt o ar r ear s and ( 2) i f

Schaef er appl i ed t o modi f y hi s mor t gage, t o pr ocess hi s appl i cat i on

bef or e f or ecl osur e. Schaef er al l eges t hat t he def endant s f ai l ed t o

per f or m or negl i gent l y per f or med t hese under t aki ngs and ar e

t heref ore subj ect t o t or t l i abi l i t y.

We concl ude t hat New Hampshi r e s economi c l oss doct r i ne bar s

Schaef er f r om r ecover i ng i n t or t f or a br each of ei t her of t hese

al l eged under t aki ngs. Wi t h r espect t o t he al l eged dut y t o pr ovi de

a rei nst atement amount , i t i s t r ue that OneWest s agr eement t o

al l ow r ei nst at ement necessar i l y i ncl uded a pr omi se t o pr ovi de

Schaef er wi t h a r ei nst at ement amount upon r equest . But i f OneWest

assumed a cont r act ual dut y t o pr ovi de a r ei nst at ement amount ,

Schaef er s t or t cl ai ms her e must f ai l because the essence of t he

economi c l oss doct r i ne i s t hat a par t y t o a cont r act may not

pur su[ e] t or t r ecover y f or pur el y economi c or commer ci al l osses

associ at ed wi t h t he cont r act r el at i onshi p. Pl our de, 917 A. 2d at

1253 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . See al so Ti et swor t h, 677

N. W. 2d at 241 ( The doct r i ne gener al l y requi r es t r ansact i ng par t i es

. . . t o pur sue onl y thei r cont r act ual r emedi es when asser t i ng an

economi c l oss cl ai m. ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

Al t hough Schaef er cl ai med i n t he br each of cont r act count of hi s

compl ai nt t hat he was deni ed cr i t i cal i nf or mat i on i n t he f or m of

a rei nst at ement quot e, t her eby denyi ng [hi m] any r eal i st i c

oppor t uni t y t o r ei nst at e hi s l oan, Schaef er Br . addendum 12, as

- 15-


16/22

expl ai ned pr evi ousl y, Schaef er has abandoned hi s br each of cont r act

cl ai m on appeal , see supr a n. 4.

Nor can Schaef er r ecover i n tor t f or t he br each of an al l eged

dut y t hat cont r adi ct s the t er ms of t he cont r act . The mor t gage

agr eement speci f i cal l y gr ant ed OneWest t he r i ght t o accel er at e

payment s and f or ecl ose i n t he event t hat Schaef er f el l i nt o def aul t

and f ai l ed t o r ei nst at e. I t i s cl ear , t hen, t hat t he second dut y

Schaef er al l eges t he def endant s assumedt he dut y t o pr ocess hi s

mor t gage modi f i cat i on appl i cat i on bef or e f or ecl osur ei s not mer el y

an addi t i onal dut y, comi ng on t op of t he obl i gat i ons t he def endant s

assumed under t he cont r act , but r at her a dut y t hat cont r adi ct s t he

t er ms of t he cont r act by r est r i ct i ng t he def endant s r i ght t o

f or ecl ose. So f ar as we ar e abl e t o di scer n, none of t he cases,

f r om New Hampshi r e or el sewhere, has enf orced i n t or t a dut y of

t hi s ki nd, whi ch cont r adi ct s t he t er ms of a cont r act . 10

10 I n Br unel l e, f or exampl e, t he dut y assumed gr at ui t ousl yby t he def endant t o ensur e t he pl ai nt i f f s woul d r ecei ve a cl eart i t l e came on t op of t he dut i es spel l ed out i n t he l and sal econt r act . See Br unel l e, 64 A. 2d at 317. See al so, e. g. , Rudol ph,414 So. 2d at 71 ( hol di ng t hat a const r uct i on l ender mayvol unt ar i l y assume a dut y t o i nspect t he [ const r uct i on pr oj ect ]f or t he [ bor r ower s] benef i t , i n addi t i on t o t he l ender si ndependent [ cont r actual ] r i ght [ t o] i nspect[ t he pr oj ect] f or i t s[ own] excl usi ve benef i t ) ; Runde, 617 N. E. 2d at 573, 575- 76( hol di ng t hat a home i nspect or and a r eal est ate br oker may haveassumed a dut y t o t he buyer t o not i f y t he sel l er on t he buyer s

behal f of pr oper t y def ect s f ound i n t he cour se of t he i nspect i on,even t hough t he def endant s ser vi ce cont r act s wer e apparent l ysi l ent as t o any such dut y t o not i f y) ; Ll oyd, 860 P. 2d at 1303- 04( hol di ng t hat an i nsur ance company may have assumed a dut y t odef end a cust omer agai nst a t or t cl ai mf al l i ng out si de t he scope oft he cust omer s i nsur ance cont r act wher e a cl ai ms per son . . . t ol d[ t he cust omer ] over t he tel ephone that [ t he i nsur er ] woul d t ake

- 16-


17/22

I n New Hampshi r e, [ p] art i es gener al l y ar e bound by t he t er ms

of an agr eement f r eel y and openl y ent er ed i nt o, and cour t s cannot

make bet t er agr eement s t han t he par t i es t hemsel ves have ent ered

i nt o or r ewr i t e cont r act s mer el y because t hey mi ght oper at e har shl y

or i nequi t abl y. See Mi l l s v. Nashua Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass n, 433

A. 2d 1312, 1315 ( N. H. 1981) . I n gener al , t he t er ms of a cont r act

cannot be modi f i ed by a l at er agr eement i n t he absence of

consi der at i on. See Kendal l v. Fl ander s, 54 A. 285, 285 ( N. H. 1903)

( I f [ a subsequent agr eement was] of f er ed f or t he pur pose of

modi f yi ng the cont r act evi denced by t he not e i n sui t , t o have been

admi ssi bl e i t must have been suppor t ed by a consi der at i on. ) . I f

we wer e t o r ecogni ze a dut y, enf or ceabl e i n t or t , t o modi f y

Schaef er s mor t gage af t er Schaef er had def aul t ed on hi s per f ormance

under t he cont r act , we woul d not merel y be i mposi ng an addi t i onal

dut y on t he def endant s, but woul d i nst ead be al t er i ng t he r i ght s

and dut i es speci f i cal l y addr essed i n t he mor t gage cont r act . Thi s

woul d al l ow t or t l aw t o unr easonabl [ y] i nt er f er e[ ] wi t h pr i nci pl es

of cont r act l awt he pr eci se out come t hat t he economi c l oss

car e of i t and [ t he i nsur er ] shor t l y t her eaf t er hi r [ ed a l awyer ]t o repr esent t he [ cust omer ] ) ; Bl ackmon, 419 So. 2d at 405- 06( hol di ng t hat by assi st i ng i t s empl oyees i n obt ai ni ng gr oup heal t hi nsur ance, an empl oyer assumed an ext r a- cont r act ual dut y t o make

accur at e repr esent at i ons t o an empl oyee about her i nsurancecover age) ; McDonal d, 621 P. 2d at 656- 59 ( hol di ng that an escr owagent and t i t l e i nsurer may have vol unt ar i l y assumed a dut y toadvi s[e t he buyer s] on t he[ i r pot ent i al ] l egal l i abi l i t y f or . . .subcont r act or s l i ens on t he pr oper t y, i n addi t i on t o t hedef endant s or di nar y cont r act ual and pr of essi onal dut i es as anescr ow agent and t i t l e i nsur er ) .

- 17-


18/22

doct r i ne seeks t o avoi d. See Pl our de, 917 A. 2d at 1254; see al so

i d. at 1256 ( [ Wher e] t he def endant and i t s par t ner have al l ocat ed

t he r i sks and benef i t s of per f or mance i n t hei r cont r act , . . . t he

cour t upset s t hat al l ocat i on when i t i mposes [ t or t ] l i abi l i t y on

t he def endant . ( al t er at i ons i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng J ay M. Fei nman,

The Economi c Loss Rul e and Pr i vat e Or der i ng, 48 Ar i z. L. Rev. 813,

814 ( 2006) ) . 11 For t hi s r eason, t he di st r i ct cour t cor r ectl y hel d

t hat t he economi c l oss doct r i ne bar s Schaef er s negl i gence cl ai m.

Schaef er al so cl ai ms t hat New Hampshi r e l aw pr ovi des

mort gagees who have f al l en behi nd on t hei r mor t gages wi t h a

st at ut or y oppor t uni t y t o rei nst at e t he mor t gage pr i or t o

f orecl osur e, ci t i ng 479: 18 of t he New Hampshi r e code. Schaef er

Br . 20. We have not f ound any aut hor i t y f r om New Hampshi r e

r ecogni zi ng a st at ut or y or common- l aw ( as di st i nct f r om

cont r act ual ) r i ght t o rei nst at e a mor t gage, however . 12

11 Al t hough Har mon was not i n a cont r act ual r el at i onshi pwi t h Schaef er , Schaef er s negl i gence cl ai ms agai nst Har mon ar i sef r omdut i es t hat Harmon al l egedl y assumed as an agent of OneWestand Fanni e Mae. See Schaef er Br . 21. As such, any l i abi l i t yi mposed on Harmon, as t he ot her def endants agent , woul def f ect i vel y modi f y t he t er ms of t he ot her def endant s cont r act wi t hSchaef er . Whi l e Schaef er cont ends i n hi s br i ef t hat Harmon owedhi m dut i es i ndependent l y ar i si ng f r om i t s st at us as a debtcol l ect or , we decl i ne t o addr ess t hat cont ent i on because he f ai l st o present any devel oped argument on t he i ssue. See I n r e Redondo,678 F. 3d at 126 n. 7.

12 Sect i on 479: 18 mer el y pr ovi des t hat [ a] l l l ands conveyedi n mor t gage may be r edeemed by t he mor t gagor . . . by t he paymentof al l demands and t he per f ormance of al l t hi ngs secur ed by t hemor t gage and t he payment of al l damages and cost s sust ai ned andi ncur r ed by r eason of t he nonper f or mance of i t s condi t i on . . .bef or e f or ecl osur e. N. H. Rev. St at . Ann. 479: 18 ( emphasi sadded) . The r i ght secur ed by t he st atut e t o r edeem a mort gage by

- 18-


19/22

Schaef er al so appeal s t he di st r i ct cour t s di smi ssal of hi s

cl ai mf or negl i gent mi sr epr esent at i on, whi ch f ocuses on t he Mi l i an

l et t er s al l eged mi srepr esent at i ons r egar di ng Mi l i an s avai l abi l i t y

t o assi st wi t h hi s cl ai m and i t s suggest i on t hat Schaef er use t he

435 f ax number t o communi cat e wi t h OneWest . There i s no quest i on

t hat New Hampshi r e recogni zes an except i on t o t he economi c l oss

doct r i ne f or cer t ai n negl i gent mi sr epr esent at i on cl ai ms. See Wyl e

v. Lees, 33 A. 3d 1187, 1190- 93 ( N. H. 2011) ; Pl our de, 917 A. 2d at

1257- 58. Schaef er s cl ai m, however , f al l s out si de t he scope of

t hi s except i on.

As an i ni t i al mat t er , t her e i s l anguage i n Pl our de t o suggest

t hat t he negl i gent mi sr epr esent at i on except i on i s l i mi t ed t o

def endant s who [ ar e] i n the busi ness of suppl yi ng i nf or mat i on.

payi ng of f t he out st andi ng debt i n i t s ent i r et y i s di st i nct f r omt he r i ght , i nvoked by Schaef er , t o r ei nst ate t he mor t gage by payi ng

onl y t he del i nquent por t i on of t he debt . See Bl ack s LawDi ct i onar y 1548 ( 9t h ed. 2009) ( def i ni ng st at ut or y r i ght ofr edempt i on as t he r i ght of a mor t gagor i n def aul t t o recoverpr oper t y af t er a f or ecl osur e sal e by payi ng t he pr i nci pal ,i nt er est , and ot her cost s t hat ar e owed, t oget her wi t h any ot hermeasur e r equi r ed t o cur e t he def aul t ) ; i d. at 1399 ( def i ni ngr ei nst at ement as pl ace[ ment ] agai n i n a f or mer st at e orposi t i on) ; see al so 17- 4 New Hampshi r e Pr act i ce: Real Est at e 4. 05 ( Mat t hew Bender & Co. 2013) ( [ A] mor t gagor has a st at ut oryr i ght t o owner shi p f r ee of t he mort gage af t er meet i ng t he l oan andmor t gage obl i gat i ons. ( ci t i ng 479: 18) ) ; Fed. Home Loan Mor t .C o r p . , L e a r n i n g C e n t e r G l o s s a r y ,

ht t p: / / www. f r eddi emac. com/ l ear n/ l o/ gl ossar y/ ( l ast vi si t ed Aug. 13,2013) ( def i ni ng t he r edempt i on per i od as [ t ] he t i me . . . dur i ngwhi ch a bor r ower may r ecl ai mf or ecl osed pr oper t y by payi ng the f ul lamount of t he f or ecl osur e sal es pr i ce, and r ei nst at ement , f ul l as t he pr ocess of r est or [ i ng] a del i nquent mor t gage t o act i vest at us by payi ng . . . t he tot al amount del i nquent ( emphasesadded) ) .

- 19-


20/22

See Pl our de, 917 A. 2d at 1254. Schaef er does not cl ai mt hat any of

t he def endant s f al l i nt o t hi s cat egor y, whi ch i ncl udes

pr of essi onal s such as account ant s, appr ai ser s, . . . and

i nvest ment br oker s. See Pi t t s v. Far m Bur eau Li f e I ns. Co. , 818

N. W. 2d 91, 112 ( I owa 2012) . But at t he same t i me, t he cour t i n

Pl our de r el i ed f or i t s f or mul at i on of t he except i on on 552 of t he

Second Rest at ement of Tor t s, whi ch i mposes l i abi l i t y f or negl i gent

mi sr epr esent at i on more br oadl y on def endant s who suppl y f al se

i nf or mat i on i n t he cour se of [ t hei r ] busi ness, pr of essi on or

empl oyment , or i n any ot her t r ansact i on i n whi ch [ t hey have] a

pecuni ar y i nt er est , . . . f or t he gui dance of ot her s i n t hei r

busi ness t r ansact i ons. See i d. at 1257 ( quot i ng Rest at ement

( Second) of Tor t s 552 ( 1977) ) . I n Wyl e, deci ded af t er Pl our de,

t he cour t appl i ed t he negl i gent mi sr epr esent at i on except i on t o

def endant s who wer e not pr of essi onal suppl i er s of i nf or mat i on, but

r at her homeowners who made repr esent at i ons r egardi ng thei r pr opert y

pr i or t o i t s sal e. See Wyl e, 33 A. 3d at 1189- 92.

Cour t s i n ot her st at es are di vi ded over whet her 552 i s

l i mi t ed t o pr of essi onal suppl i er s of i nf or mat i on, or appl i es mor e

br oadl y t o par t i es who pr of i t by suppl yi ng t he i nf or mat i on.

Compare, e. g. , Pi t t s, 818 N. W. 2d at 111- 12 ( [ O] nl y t hose who are

i n t he busi ness of suppl yi ng i nf or mat i on t o ot her s can be l i abl e

f or negl i gent mi sr epr esent at i on. ( quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) wi t h

St at e ex r el . Br onst er v. U. S. St eel Cor p. , 919 P. 2d 294, 307- 12

- 20-


21/22

( Haw. 1996) ( hol di ng t hat 552 does not r equi r e t hat def endant s

be i n t he busi ness of suppl yi ng i nf or mat i on, but onl y that

[ t ] hey . . . pr of i t by suppl yi ng t he i nf or mat i on) .

But t he New Hampshi r e Supreme Cour t i n Wyl e made cl ear t hat

t he scope of l i abi l i t y agai nst t hose who ar e not pr of essi onal

suppl i er s of i nf or mat i on i s l i mi t ed. I n Wyl e, a pr oper t y sel l er

mi sr epr esent ed, bot h i n a pr oper t y di scl osur e st at ement i ncl uded i n

t he pr oper t y l i st i ng and i n a conver sat i on wi t h t he buyer pr i or t o

[ t he] pur chase, t hat t he sel l er had al l t he necessary per mi t s f or

i mprovement s made t o the proper t y. See Wyl e, 33 A. 3d at 1190; see

al so Rest at ement ( Second) of Tor t s 552 cmt . h, i l l us. 4

( descr i bi ng a si mi l ar scenar i o i nvol vi ng a mi sr epr esent at i on i n a

r eal est at e l i st i ng) . The cour t di st i ngui shed t hose negl i gent

mi sr epr esent at i on cl ai ms t hat cent er upon an al l eged i nducement t o

ent er i nt o a cont r act f r omt hose that f ocus upon per f or mance of t he

cont r act . See Wyl e, 33 A. 3d at 1191. The cour t hel d t hat t he

f or mer cl ass of mi sr epr esent at i ons ( whi ch by def i ni t i on must

pr edat e t he f or mat i on of t he cont r act ) , but not t he l at t er cl ass,

may f or mt he basi s of a negl i gent mi sr epr esent at i on cl ai m, at l east

wher e t he def endant i s not a pr of essi onal suppl i er of i nf or mat i on.

I d. at 1191- 92.

Schaef er argues t hat Wyl e does not bar hi s cl ai ms. We are

unpersuaded. We r ead Wyl e as hol di ng t hat t he negl i gent

mi sr epr esent at i on except i on r eaches onl y those r epr esent at i ons t hat

- 21-


22/22

pr ecede t he f or mat i on of t he cont r act or t hat r el at e t o a

t r ansact i on ot her t han t he one t hat const i t ut es t he subj ect of t he

cont r act ; r epr esent at i ons made dur i ng t he cour se of t he cont r act s

per f or mance and r el at ed t o the subj ect mat t er of t he cont r act , by

cont r ast , are so bound up i n t he per f ormance of t he cont r act as

t o be bar r ed by t he economi c l oss doct r i ne. See i d. at 1191- 92.

Her e, t he repr esent at i ons wer e made dur i ng the cour se of t he

cont r act s per f or mance, and r el at ed t o the subj ect mat t er of t he

cont r act . Speci f i cal l y, t hey concer ned t he pr ocess by whi ch t he

l ender s woul d deci de whet her or not t o exer ci se t hei r cont r act ual

r i ght t o f or ecl ose on t he mor t gage; boi l ed down t o i t s essent i al s,

Schaef er s compl ai nt al l eges t hat t he l ender s mi sr epr esent ed t he

ci r cumst ances under whi ch t hey woul d agr ee t o f orego t hat

cont r act ual r i ght . Such a cl ai m, i n Wyl e s t er ms, f ocus[ es] upon

per f or mance of t he cont r act , i d. at 1191, and i s barr ed by t he

economi c l oss doct r i ne. Ther ef or e, t he di st r i ct cour t cor r ect l y

di smi ssed Schaef er s negl i gent mi sr epr esent at i on cl ai m.

III.

We t her ef or e af f i r m t he deci si on of t he di st r i ct cour t

di smi ssi ng Schaef er s negl i gence and negl i gent mi sr epr esent at i on

cl ai ms.

AFFIRMED

Cost s t o appel l ees.

- 22-

Schaefer v. IndyMac Mortgage Services, 1st Cir. (2013)

Documents