Dane Jensen v. U.S. Bank

MEMORANDUM **

This case arises out of negative credit reporting incurred by appellants Dane and Jennifer Jensen (“the Jensens”) after the Jensens were denied a permanent loan modification under the federal Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”) and failed to cure the resultant loan delinquency thereafter. Appellee U.S. Bank N.A. d/b/a U.S. Bank Home Mortgage (“U.S. Bank”) serviced the Jensens’ home mortgage and was the entity to which the Jensens applied for a HAMP modification, in an effort to reduce their monthly mortgage payments. As part of the application process, the Jensens participated in a Trial Period Plan (“TPP”), during which the Jensens were allowed to make reduced mortgage payments for three consecutive months while U.S. Bank considered the Jensens’ eligibility for a permanent modification. Ultimately, the Jensens were denied a loan modification, at which point U.S. Bank demanded payment to cure the delinquency that arose as a result of the three reduced TPP payments made in place of the Jensens’ regular monthly payments. The Jensens failed to cure the delinquency and, as a result, incurred negative credit reporting by U.S. Bank.

At the outset, it is…

Because I conclude that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor’ of U.S. Bank on the FCRA and RE SPA claims, I respectfully dissent.

1. Applying the parol evidence rule, the district court excluded testimony about oral representations made by bank employees that the Jensens were not required to pay delinquencies accruing during the TPP period until the end of the loan. None of the governing documents, however, addresses the timing of these payments. Because the alleged oral representations do not contradict the written agreements, they were improperly excluded. See, e.g., Siegner v. Interstate Prod. Credit Ass’n of Spokane, 109 Or.App. 417 , 820 P.2d 20, 26-27 (1991) (“To the extent that [the writings] do not explain [an important aspect of] how the loans [work], the documents are incomplete and the parties could not have intended them to constitute their entire agreement.”); see also Abercrombie v. Hayden Corp., 320 Or. 279 , 883 P.2d 845, 853 (1994) (“The parol evidence rule does not prohibit a party from introducing evidence extrinsic to a writing to explain an ambiguity in the writing, even when the writing is a completely integrated agreement.”).

And,…

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 08 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DANE JENSEN; JENNIFER JENSEN, No. 13-35703

Plaintiffs - Appellants, D.C. No. 3:12-cv-00333-ST

v. MEMORANDUM*

U.S. BANK N.A.,

d/b/a U.S. BANK HOME MORTGAGE,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland Janice M. Stewart, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted May 5, 2015 Portland, Oregon

Before: FLETCHER and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and WALTER, Senior District Judge.**

This case arises out of negative credit reporting incurred by appellants Dane

and Jennifer Jensen (“the Jensens”) after the Jensens were denied a permanent loan

modification under the federal Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”)

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

** The Honorable Donald E. Walter, Senior United States District Judge for Western Louisiana, sitting by designation. and…