Skip to main content
· 11/26/2019

Cenatiempo v. Bank of America, N.A.

Citations

  • 333 Conn. 769

Syllabus

The plaintiffs, who had defaulted on a residential mortgage for which the defendant financial institution was the loan servicer, sought to recover damages for the defendant's alleged violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) (§ 42-110a et seq.) and for negligence in connection with conduct that had occurred during postdefault negotia- tions. After the plaintiffs defaulted on their mortgage, the defendant instituted a foreclosure action. In an effort to avoid foreclosure, the plaintiffs made repeated, unsuccessful attempts, over the course of two and one-half years, to obtain a loan modification from the defendant pursuant to a federal loan modification program known as HAMP. The defendant then withdrew the foreclosure action without explanation. The plaintiffs continued to seek a loan modification, but the defendant instituted a second foreclosure action. The defendant continued to mis- handle the loan modification process for approximately three additional years before it finally provided the plaintiffs with a permanent loan modification. The terms of the modification increased the principal amount that the plaintiffs owed by including attorney's fees for media- tion, default fees, fees for commencing the second foreclosure action, and accrued interest in excess of what the plaintiffs would have paid if their initial loan modification application had been timely and properly evaluated. The plaintiffs alleged in count one of their complaint that, during the course of seeking a loan modification, the defendant commit- ted unfair or deceptive acts in the conduct of trade or commerce with the intent of preventing them from receiving a loan modification in that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable diligence in reviewing and processing completed loan modification applications, repeatedly requested duplicative and unnecessary updates to financial information, erroneously denied applications on the basis of purported failures to provide request

Judges: Robinson; Palmer; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.