NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

__________

No. 20-1665

__________

JEFFREY B. BROADHURST,

Appellant

v.

CITIMORTGAGE, INC.

 

__________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(District Court No. 2:18-cv-00121)

District Judge: Honorable Paul S. Diamond

__________

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

On November 20, 2020

Before: JORDAN, KRAUSE, and RESTREPO, Circuit Judges

(Filed: December 11, 2020)

__________

OPINION*

__________

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

RESTREPO, Circuit Judge.

Appellant Jeffrey Broadhurst contests the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee, CitiMortgage, Inc. (“Citi”). Broadhurst seeks to rescue claims 

brought under Pennsylvania’s Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act (“FCEUA”), 73 P.S. 

§ 2270, and Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (“UTPCPL”), 73 P.S. §

201, as well as for breach of contract, arising from a failed mortgage loan modification 

attempt. The District Court concluded that Broadhurst’s inability to demonstrate that he 

suffered any ascertainable loss resulting from Citi’s alleged misrepresentations, along with 

his failure to show that Citi breached any contractual duty owed to him in the loan modification process, meant that his claims failed as a matter of law. We will affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

On December 15, 2004, Broadhurst and his then-wife, Danielle Broadhurst, obtained a $354,700 loan from Citi. The Note for the loan was secured by a mortgage against 

a property that Broadhurst then purchased. For the first ten years of the loan, the Note only 

required Broadhurst to make monthly interest payments of $1,625.71. After January 1, 

2015, however, the interest rate would be subject to change and Broadhurst’s monthly payments would include principal in addition to interest. During the initial period, Broadhurst 

also was responsible for making property tax and insurance payments on the property.

In February 2014, Broadhurst attempted to obtain a loan modification, and on October 31 of that year retained Attorney David Bifulco to aid him in the process and sent a 

letter to Citi requesting that Citi direct all future communication to Bifulco as his counsel. 

Broadhurst maintains, however, that Citi continued to contact him directly multiple times 
3

after receiving the October 31 letter. Broadhurst made his final regular loan payment to 

Citi in September 2014. On July 20, 2016, Citi filed an action in state court to foreclose 

upon the property, and that action remains pending.

On October 31, 2016, Citi sent a letter to Broadhurst and his wife outlining a Trial 

Plan, participation in which could serve as a precursor for modification of the loan. The 

2016 letter stated: “You are approved to enter into a trial period plan under the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). This is the first step toward qualifying for more 

affordable mortgage payments.” J.A. 177. Under the Trial Plan, Broadhurst would have 

been required to make three payments of $1,596.22 on December 1, 2016, January 1, 2017, 

and February 1, 2017. The plan further required the payments and other paperwork to be 

submitted in a timely fashion. If these conditions were met, among others, Broadhurst’s 

mortgage would be modified.

The letter also gave Broadhurst notice of how payments would be calculated differently under a modified loan. It explained that the difference between the payments owed 

during the trial period and those owed prior to that period would be added to the total 

balance of the loan, along with other past due amounts. It further detailed that, unlike with 

the original loan, Broadhurst’s payments under a modified loan would include an escrow 

for property taxes and insurance, and that he might have to make additional payments to 

cover the charges for creating the escrow account.

In a letter dated May 16, 2017, Citi informed Broadhurst and his wife that they had 

been approved to enter into a mortgage Modification Agreement. In keeping with what 

the October 2016 Trial Plan letter had stated, the Modification Agreement called for the
4

establishment of an escrow account to hold Broadhurst’s property tax and insurance payments, and that the monthly amount due to the account would be $935.86. These payments 

were the result of an escrow shortage of $7,240.97. Broadhurst’s total monthly payment 

under the loan modification would be $2,306.56. In order to accept the terms, Broadhurst 

and his wife were instructed to sign and return the Modification Agreement to Citi by May 

30, 2017.

Broadhurst maintains the letter and enclosed Modification Agreement were not sent 

to him in a timely manner, and that he only physically received the letter after the May 30, 

2017 deadline. It is undisputed that Citi’s counsel, Powers Kirn, emailed the letter and 

Modification Agreement to Broadhurst’s counsel, Bifulco, on May 26, 2017, but Bifulco 

purportedly did not receive the letter until after the end of the Memorial Day holiday. Neither Broadhurst nor his wife signed and returned the Agreement at any point, nor did they 

make any of the payments specified by the agreement.

II. DISCUSSION1

A. Broadhurst’s claims under the UTPCPL and FCEUA cannot succeed

Broadhurst alleges violations of two separate statutes. In Count One of his Complaint, Broadhurst contends that the FCEUA was violated due to Citi’s continued direct 

1 The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. We have jurisdiction under 

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the District Court’s grant of summary judgment. 

Goldenstein v. Repossessors Inc., 815 F.3d 142, 146 (3d Cir. 2016). “Viewing the evidence 

in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, summary judgment is appropriate only if 

there is ‘no genuine issue as to any material fact [such] that the moving party is entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law.’” Kelly v. Borough of Carlisle, 622 F.3d 248, 253 (3d Cir.

2010) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)).
5

correspondence with him after his retention of counsel. In Count Two, Broadhurst alleges 

that Citi’s untimely sending of the Modification Agreement to Broadhurst and his attorney, 

along with Citi’s providing “contradictory information” about the modification itself, constituted “a per se violation of the pertinent statutes.” Appellant Br. at 9. In Count Three, 

Broadhurst alleges further violations of both statutes based on a violation of the Truth in 

Lending Act, see 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. None of these Counts can be sustained.

The UTPCPL prohibits “[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive 

acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” 73 P.S. § 201-3. In Kaymark 

v. Bank of America, N.A., 783 F.3d 168 (3d Cir. 2015), this Court explained that a plaintiff 

maintaining a private right of action under the UTPCPL must demonstrate: (1) “ascertainable loss of money, real or personal,” (2) “‘as a result of’ the defendant’s prohibited conduct under the statute.” Id. at 180 (quoting 73 P.S. § 201-9.2(a)). “[T]he loss must be nonspeculative.” Id. (citing Schwarzwaelder v. Fox, 895 A.2d 614, 619 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006)). 

Plaintiffs must also show that this loss occurred due to their “justifiable reliance” upon the 

defendant’s unlawful conduct. Hunt v. U.S. Tobacco Co., 538 F.3d 217, 222 (3d Cir. 

2008); see also Yocca v. Pittsburgh Steelers Sports, Inc., 854 A.2d 425, 438 (Pa. 2004)

(“To bring a private cause of action” under the UTPCPL, “a plaintiff must show that he 

justifiably relied on the defendant’s wrongful conduct or representation and that he suffered 

harm as a result of that reliance.”).

The FCEUA prohibits “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts 

or practices with regard to the collection of debts.” 73 P.S. § 2270.2. Because the FCEUA 

is “enforced through the remedial provision of the UTPCPL,” a plaintiff “cannot state a 
6

claim for relief under the FCEUA if he cannot state a claim for relief under the UTPCPL.” 

Kaymark, 783 F.3d at 182. In other words, if a plaintiff’s UTPCPL claim fails, his FCEUA 

claim fails as well.

The District Court concluded that Broadhurst failed to show ascertainable loss with 

respect to Citi’s purported direct communications with Broadhurst and its untimely sending 

of the Modification Agreement, even assuming that such conduct might constitute false or 

deceptive misrepresentations under the FCEUA and UTPCPL. The Court was correct in 

doing so. First, Broadhurst’s argument that Citi’s alleged direct contacts with him are per 

se violations of the UTPCPL has no basis in Third Circuit or Pennsylvania case law. 

Demonstration of ascertainable loss, in the form of actual damages, is an essential element 

of his cause of action, and Broadhurst failed to show any actual damages as a result of the 

alleged contacts.

The District Court also properly rejected Broadhurst’s belated attempt to show ascertainable loss at summary judgment, where he alleged for the first time in his opposition

that he suffered damages due to lost work time, travel to the police station in reporting 

Citi’s misconduct, and legal fees. We have held that where a plaintiff “did not properly 

request leave to file an amended complaint,” then “the District Court did not abuse its discretion in not granting it.” Ranke v. Sanofi-Synthelabo Inc., 436 F.3d 197, 206 (3d Cir. 

2006). Although Broadhurst contends that the District Court should have granted him 

leave to amend his Complaint based on the submissions contained within his Counterstatement of Facts, he did not actually request leave from the Court to amend his Complaint, 

nor could he ground his theory of ascertainable loss in the evidence produced in discovery.
7

Finally, the District Court was correct in rejecting Counts Two and Three of 

Broadhurst’s Complaint, as the October 2016 Trial Plan letter expressly stated that the 

amount computed in a future modification would include escrow for property taxes and 

insurance, explaining the disparity between the amounts owed during the Trial Plan itself 

and in the period governed by the proposed Modification Agreement.

B. Broadhurst’s breach of contract claim must also fail

In the proceedings below, Broadhurst premised his breach of contract claim on the 

theory that the monthly payment amount outlined in the Modification Agreement was significantly higher than what had been promised in the Trial Plan. This argument was rejected by the District Court, and Broadhurst does not renew it here. Instead, Broadhurst 

now tethers his breach of contract claim to Citi’s alleged delay in forwarding him the Modification Agreement, along with setting an overly restrictive timeline for the document’s 

return.

In order to establish a breach of contract claim under Pennsylvania law, a party must 

show “(1) the existence of a contract, including its essential terms, (2) a breach of a duty 

imposed by the contract[,] and (3) resultant damages.” Ware v. Rodale Press, Inc., 322 

F.3d 218, 225 (3d Cir. 2003) (quoting CoreStates Bank, N.A. v. Cutillo, 723 A.2d 1053, 

1058 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1999)). Even assuming, arguendo, that the Trial Plan constituted a 

contract between Broadhurst and Citi, Broadhurst has not cited anything in it that specifies

by when the Modification Agreement would be presented to him, or by when he would 

have to consider it. Moreover, in his deposition, Broadhurst testified that the terms of the 

Modification Agreement were unacceptable, and even if he had additional time to review 
8

its terms, he was unlikely to have accepted them. Consequently, Broadhurst is unable to 

point to a contractual duty that was breached by Citi, nor any actual damages that he incurred due to Citi’s conduct.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s grant of Citi’s motion 

for summary judgment.