PHH MORTGAGE CORP. V. RAMSEY
17 N.E.3d 629 (2014)
NATURE OF THE CASE: PHH (P) appealed a judgment in favor of Ramsey (D).
FACTS: D purchased real estate for use as a rental property. He executed a promissory
note payable to Coldwell Banker and used the funds to finance the real estate purchase. The
note was secured by a mortgage in favor of Coldwell Banker. After the closing, D deeded the
property to Precision. P subsequently became the holder of the note and mortgage. Things
were great until August 2009 when D attempted to pay his monthly mortgage through a 'pay
now' link on P's website, referred to as 'Speedpay,' as he had been doing for six years. P
received an error message informing him that his payment could not be processed. He tried
again on August 6 and 10 but received the same error message. On August 13, 2009, appellee
tried to pay online again via Speedpay, and this attempt appeared successful, but he did not
receive a confirmation number. D telephoned and was told this his payment would be 'pushed'
through the system, and he was given a confirmation number for his August 2009 payment. On
August 16, D got a notice that his payment was late. D telephoned the help line and was told
that the website was having problems but his payment would be processed. On September 3,
2009, D went to the site to make his September payment, and he realized that his August 2009
payment had still not been credited. He attempted to make an online payment via Speedpay and
received an error message. D called and P said the payment would be processed but the late
payment would be reported to the credit bureaus. On September 8, 2009, P issued appellee a
notice of intent to foreclose. On September 9, 2009, D traveled to a physical office to make
payments but he was told by representatives that the office did not accept payments. D spoke
to a representative but the representative never contacted him again as to a solution. On
September 10, 2009, D mailed a payment for August and September, but the payment was never
processed or returned to him. D tried again for October with an October and November payment
but it was never processed nor returned. D stopped trying in December. P foreclosed and
eventually they changed the door locks and D was unable to continue renting. P sued D for
foreclosure. P filed a motion for summary judgment and it was granted. D appealed and on
remand and the court denied P foreclosure and awarded D judgment for $1550. P eventually
appealed. The magistrate found that P waived the terms of the contract by accepting
electronic payments from D for six years without objection.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment