Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

No Private Right of Action Under HAMP

By David Greene  on July 23, 2012
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

Many delinquent borrowers have recently been attempting to assert claims against their loan servicers for failing to provide loan modifications under the Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”), which was created by the U.S. Treasury Department as part of the Making Home Affordable Program.  The Eleventh Circuit recently considered whether a private right of action even exists under HAMP.

In Miller v. Chase Home Finance, LLC, 677 F.3d 1113 (11th Cir. 2012), the Eleventh Circuit considered the claims of Jason Miller (“Miller”), who owned real property in Georgia that he purchased with the proceeds from a loan from Chase Home Finance, LLC (“Chase”).  When Miller began experiencing financial difficulties, Chase granted him a temporary loan modification.  However, Chase ultimately refused to provide a permanent loan modification to Miller.  Miller then filed suit against Chase, asserting various common-law claims, all based upon Chase’s refusal to issue a permanent loan modification, which Miller claimed constituted a failure by Chase to comply with its obligations under HAMP.

The Eleventh Circuit ruled that neither HAMP, nor the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (“EESA”), 12 U.S.C. §§5201-5261 (pursuant to which HAMP was created), expressly provide a private right of action for borrowers against loan servicers.  The Eleventh Circuit also considered whether or not an implied private right of action exists under HAMP.  After applying the factors set forth in Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc. v. Johannesburg Consol. Inves., 553 F.3d 1351 (11th Cir. 2008), the Court determined that no implied private right of action exists under HAMP or EESA.  Finally, the Eleventh Circuit determined that Miller’s claims, to the extent that they fell outside of the scope of HAMP, failed as a matter of law.  Based upon the foregoing, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court’s order dismissing Miller’s complaint against Chase for failure to state a claim.

The Eleventh Circuit has made clear that a borrower does not have a private right of action, express or implied, under HAMP against a loan servicer for failing to provide a permanent loan modification.  

The Eleventh Circuit’s opinion can be found here.

Photo of David Greene  David Greene 

David Greene is a commercial litigation partner in Fox Rothschild’s West Palm Beach office. His practice focuses primarily on banking litigation, real estate litigation, title insurance litigation, and construction litigation. You can reach David at 561-804-4441 or dgreene@foxrothschild.com.

Read more about David Greene EmailDavid's Linkedin ProfileDavid's Twitter Profile
  • Posted in:
    Other
  • Blog:
    South Florida Trial Practice
  • Organization:
    Fox Rothschild LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo