N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT DANE JENSEN; JENNIFER JENSEN, Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts,
v. U.S. B ANK N.A., d/b/a U.S. B A NK HOM E M OR TGAGE, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-35703 D.C . No. 3:12-c v-00333-ST M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore g on, Portla nd Ja n i c e M . Ste wart, M a g istra te Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay 5, 2015 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : FLETC HER

and HUR

W ITZ, C irc u it Judge s, a

n d W ALTER , Se nior Distric t Judge
. ** This c a se arise s out of ne ga tive c re d it re porting inc urre d by a ppe lla nts Da ne
and Je n nife r Je nse n (“ the J e n se ns” ) a fte r the Je nse n s we re de nie d a pe rm a n e nt loa n
m odific a tion unde r the fe de ra l Hom e Afforda ble M odific at ion Progra

m (“ HAM P” ) 

# FIL E D
JUL 08 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Dona ld E. W a lte r, Se nior Unite d State s Distric t Judge for W e ste rn Louisia

na , sitting by

de signa tion

.and fa ile d

to c ure the re sulta

nt loa n de linque nc y

the re a fte r. Appe l le e U.S. B ank N.A. d/b/a

U.S. B a nk Hom e M ortga ge (“ U.S. B ank” ) se rvic e d the Je nse ns’ hom e
m ortga ge and wa s the e ntity to whic h the Je nse ns a

pplie d for a

HAM P
m odific a tion, in a

n e ffort to re duc e the ir m onthly m ortga ge pa

y m e nts. As pa

rt of the a pplic a t ion proc e s s, the Je nse ns pa rtic ipate d in a

Tria l Pe riod Pla

n (“ TPP” ), during whic h the Je nse ns we re a llowe d to m a ke re duc e d m ortga g e pa y m e nts for thre e c onse c utive m onths while U.S. B a n k c onside re d the Je nse ns’ e ligibility for a pe rm ane nt m odific a tion. Ultim ate ly , the Je n se ns we re de nie d a loa n m o dific a tion,
a t whic h point U.S. B ank de m ande d pa y m e nt to c ure the de linque n c y tha t a rose a s
a re s ult of the thre e re duc e d TPP pa y m e n ts m a de in pla c e of the Je nse ns’ re gula r
m onthly pa y m e nts. The Je nse ns fa ile d to c ure the de linque nc y and, a s a re sult, inc urre d ne ga tive c re d i t re porting by U.S. B ank. At the outse t, it is inc um be nt upon us to m

a ke c le ar that the Je nse ns did not sue U.S. B ank for bre a c h of the a g re e m e nt to pa rtic ipate in a

TPP unde r HAM P, whic h is the only priva te right of a c tion a

rising from

HAM P that ha s be e n
re c o gniz e d by

this c irc uit. Se e C

orv e llo v . W

e lls Fargo Bank

, N A , 728 F.3d 878 (9th C ir. 2013) (pe r c uriam ). Inste a d, the Je n se n s a ppe a l the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of
sum m ary judgm e nt on the Je nse ns’ c la im s for viola tions of the Fa ir C re dit R e porting Ac t, 15 U.S.C . §§1681–1681x (“ FC R A” ), and the R e a l Esta

te

2Se ttle m e nt Proc e dure s Ac t of 1974, 12 U.S.C . §§ 2601–2617 (“ R ESPA” ). Following a

re v i e w of the re c ord a

nd with thebe ne fit of ora l a rgum e nt, we a ffirm the d istric t c o urt’ s dism issa l of the Je nse ns’ c la im s. To initia te the HAM P proc e ss, the Je n se n s we re re quire d to sign a TPP
a gre e m e nt. In orde r to find in fa vor of the Je nse ns, we would ha ve to ignore the
c le ar la ngua ge of the TPP, by

whic h the following te rm s we re m a d e una m biguous: the T PP itse lf wa s not a

m o dific a tion of the Je nse ns’ loa n; the Je nse ns re m a ine d bound by the te rm s a

n d provisions of the

origina l loa

n doc u m e nts; a

nd U.S. B ank did not re linquish a

ny of the rights a

n d re m e die s provide d by

the origina l loa

n doc um e nts. Inde e d, e ve n the TPP pa y m e nts we re not poste d until suc h tim e a s the
a m ount tota le d e nough to pa y the olde st de linque nt pa

y m e nt. The re fore , e v e n during the TPP, the loa

n wa s still be i ng se rvic e d in a c c o rdanc e with the origina l
m ortga ge and a c c o m

pa ny ing note
. It is undispute d tha

t the Je nse ns we re bound by an e nforc e a

ble hom e
m ortga ge , issue d in M a

y of 2008 a

nd se rvic e d by

U.S. B ank. It is furthe r undispute d tha

t the Je nse ns prope rly

m a de thre e re duc e d pa

y m e nts, during the

TPP
m onths of Oc tobe r through De c e m be r 2009. In De c e m

be r 2009, the Je nse ns we re tim e ly notifie d via

te l e phone and in writing tha t the y ha d be e n de nie d a

pe rm ane nt loa n m odific a tion. At tha

t tim e , the Je nse n s re m a ine d subje c t to the te rm s of the ir

3origina l m ortga ge and loa n, a s c onfirm e d by

the pe nultim a te pa

ra gra ph of the TPP, whic h c le arly

and una m biguously sta te d tha t a ll te rm s a

nd provisions of the origina l loa

n doc um e nts re m a ine d in full forc e and e ffe c t. B e ginning in Ja nua ry 2010, whe n U.S. B ank be ga n de m anding pa

y m e nt to c ure the de linque nc y , the Je nse ns unde rstood tha

t the de l inque nt a

m o unt re p re se nte d the tota l diffe re nc e be twe e n the Je nse ns’ origina l m onthly m ortga ge pa

y m e nts a nd the thre e re duc e d pa y m e nts m a de during the TPP. At no tim e did the Je nse ns disputethe na ture of the d e linque nt a

m ount nor did the

Je nse n s dispute tha

t the y , in fa c t, owe d

som e
a m ount to c ure the de linque n c y . Inste a d, the Je nse ns m a inta ine d, at a ll tim e s
re le va nt a nd throughout this a

ppe a l, tha t the only que s tion in dispute

wa s w he n the Je nse ns we re re quire d

to c ure the de linque n c y . The Je nse ns a

rgue tha t, ba se d on a lle ge d ora l re pre s e ntations m a de to the Je nse ns by

va rious U.S. B ank e m

ploy e e s, the Je nse ns we re e ntitle d to de la y pa y m e nt of the de linque n t

a m ount until the

e nd of the loa

n, without suffe ring a

ny
a dve rse c onse que nc e s. If we gave c re de n c e to tha t a rgum e nt, the re sult would in fa c t be a m o dific a tion of the Je nse ns’ loa n a gre e m e nt, in tha

t the Je nse ns would be gran te d re lie f from

the i r re gula

r m onthly pa y m e nt obliga

tions. The Je nse ns prim arily re ly on ora l re pre se ntations tha t a rre ara ge s would be " ta c ke d onto the e nd of the loa n." Any suc h sta te m e nts would ha

ve oc c urre d prior to thesigning of the

4TPP a nd the re fore are not a d m issible unde r the pa

rol e vide nc e rule
. Se e Abe rc rombie

v . Hay de n C

o rp. , 883 P.2d 845, 850 (Or. 1994) (“ The pa rol e vide nc e rule , in brie f, provide s tha t a b i nding, c om

ple te ly inte gra t e d, writte n a gre e m e nt supe rse de s or disc ha

rge s a ll a gre e m e nts, writte n or ora l, tha t we re m a d e be fore the
c om ple t e ly inte gra te d a gre e m e n t, to the e xte nt tha t the prior a gre e m e nts a

re within the s c ope of the c o m

ple te ly inte gra te d a gre e m e nt.” ); se e also O.R .S. § 41.740. The Je nse ns a lso re ly

upon re pre se ntations m a de in M arc h 2010, by U.S. B ank
e m ploy e e Ja c kie , to a c t a s ora l m odific a tions of theorigina l loa n a gre e m e n t. Howe ve r, unde r Ore gon la w, a n ora l prom ise to do wha

t a prom i sor is a lre a dy le ga lly obliga te d to do is not c onside ra tion; a n ora l m odific a tion is not e nforc e a ble unle ss the re is offe r, a c c e pta nc e , a nd c onside ra tion. Se e J

ole v . Bre dbe nne r , 768 P.2d 433, 435 (Or. C t . App. 1989); se e also Mitc he ll v

. Pac ific First Bank , 880 P.2d 490, 496–97 n.7 (Or. C t. App. 1994). In light of the

Je nse ns be ing de nie d

a pe rm ane nt loa

n m odific a tion, the
re la tive positions of the

pa rtie s re turne d to sta

tus quo a nte . The Je n se n s the n

fa ile d to m e e t the ir re gula

r pa y m e nt obliga

tions, for whic h ne g a tive c re dit re porting wa s
a known c onse que nc e . B e c a use we find tha

t the Je nse ns we re inde e d de linque nt on the i r m ortga ge pa

y m e nts, U.S. B ank wa s justifie d in re porting thea c c o unt a s de linque nt to the c re dit re porting a ge nc ie s . The re fore , we ne e d not re a c h the m e rits

5of the Je nse ns’ c la im s for viola tions of theFC R

A a nd RESPA. AFFIRM E D.

6Jensen v. U.S. Bank, N.A. , 13
- 35703

HURWITZ , Circuit Judge, dissenting: Because I conclude that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of U
. S
. Bank on the FCR A and RESPA claims , I respectfully dissent
. 1. Applying the parol evidence rule, t h e 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
. N one of the governing documents , however, address es t he timing of these payments
. Because the alleged oral representations do not contradict the written agreements, the y w ere improperly excluded
. See, e.g. , Siegner v. Interstate Prod. Credit Ass’n of Spokane , 820 P.2d 20, 26

- 27 (Or. Ct. App. 1991) (“ To the extent that [the writings] do not explain [an important aspect of] how th e 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. , 883 P.2d 845, 853 (Or. 1994) (“ The parol evidence rule does not prohibit a party from introducing evi dence extrinsic to a writing to explain an ambiguity in the writing, even when the writing is a completely integrated agreement. ”). And, if believed, Mr. Jen sen’s attestations about the bank employees’ oral representations would establish that U.S. Bank failed to remedy improperly reported 

# FILED
JUL 8 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

delinquencies after the Jensens disputed the delinquencies with the credit bureaus , in violation of the FCRA
. See Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP , 584 F.3d 1147, 1154 (9th Cir. 2009); Nelson v. Chase Manhattan Mortg. Corp. , 282 F.3d 1057, 10 59
- 60 (9th Cir. 2002) . Summary judgment on the FCRA claim was therefore improper. 2. In any event, U.S. Bank has conceded that the Jensens’ accounts were improperly reported as delinquent during the TPP term
. U.S. Bank charact erizes this violation a s inconsequential , arguing that two falsely reported months of delinquencies among several correctly reported months could not have caused “actual damages” under the FCRA
. But t he Jensens had good credit before the negative reportin g began and were distraught when their credit was ruined ; whether the conceded violation was a “substantial factor” in causing injuries cognizable under the FCRA should be resolved at trial. See, e.g. , Clements v. Airport Auth. of Washoe Cnty. , 69 F.3d 321, 335 (9th Cir. 1995) (reserving “substantial factor” question for trial); Bradshaw v. BAC Home Loans Servicing , LP , 816 F. Supp. 2d 1066, 1075
- 76 (D. Or. 2011 ) (same) ; cf. Guimond v. Trans Union Credit Info. Co. , 45 F.3d 1329, 1333 (9th Cir. 1995) (emotional distress is cognizable under the FCRA)
. 3. For the same reason , summary judgment on the RESPA claim was improper. U.S. Bank concedes that it violated 12 U.S.C. § 2 605(e)(3) when it failed3

to cease negative reporting during the sixty

- day period after the Jensens advised the bank in writing that they were disputing the delinquencies . Assuming the Jensens’ alleged injuries are cognizable under RESPA

— an issue not reached below nor addressed by the majority

— whether those injuries were caused by the unlawful negative reporting during this sixty

- day period should be resolved at trial
.