Narrative Opinion Summary
This case involves an appeal by a borrower, Schaefer, against a district court's dismissal of his lawsuit challenging the foreclosure and subsequent eviction process executed by IndyMac Mortgage Services, OneWest Bank, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), and Harmon Law Offices. Schaefer's claims, which sought injunctive relief, nullification of the foreclosure sale, mortgage modification, and damages, were dismissed based on the economic loss doctrine, which precludes tort recovery for purely economic losses arising from contractual relationships. The court found that Schaefer failed to establish that OneWest assumed a duty to provide a reinstatement amount or process a loan modification application before foreclosure. Additionally, Schaefer's negligent misrepresentation claim was dismissed as it did not meet the exception criteria, being related to representations made during contract performance. The district court's decisions were affirmed on appeal, with the court finding no viable tort claims under New Hampshire law, thereby upholding the integrity of the contractual obligations between the parties.
Legal Issues Addressed
Assumed Extracontractual Dutiessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Schaefer's argument that the defendants assumed an extracontractual duty was rejected, as such a duty could not be established based on the communications provided.
Reasoning: Schaefer argues that the defendants assumed such a duty by providing him with a reinstatement amount and considering his mortgage modification application after default.
Economic Loss Doctrine under New Hampshire Lawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The economic loss doctrine barred Schaefer's negligence claims as they were based purely on economic losses stemming from contractual relationships.
Reasoning: The court granted the motions, stating that the economic loss doctrine applied to Schaefer’s claims regardless of the relief sought, as the alleged harm was economic.
Jurisdiction and Standard of Reviewsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appeal was reviewed de novo by the Circuit Court under 28 U.S.C. 1291, focusing on the district court's dismissal order.
Reasoning: Schaefer then appealed, and jurisdiction was confirmed under 28 U.S.C. 1291, with a de novo review of the dismissal order.
Negligent Misrepresentation Exceptionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Schaefer's claims did not meet the criteria for the negligent misrepresentation exception to the economic loss doctrine, as they involved representations made during contract performance.
Reasoning: The court interprets Wyle as stating that the negligent misrepresentation exception applies only to representations made before contract formation or unrelated to the contract's subject.
Tort Duty and Contractual Termssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Schaefer's assertion of additional duties by OneWest was deemed contradictory to the mortgage terms, and thus not enforceable in tort.
Reasoning: The alleged duty to process the mortgage modification application was deemed contradictory to the mortgage terms, which specifically allowed OneWest to foreclose if Schaefer defaulted.