FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T APRI L19, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 15 16 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :1 0- cv -0 02 06 -WCO JASON A. MILLER, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l l Pl ai nt iff - App el lant , ve rs us CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt- App el le e.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ap ril 19 , 20 12 ) Befo re CARNES, WILSON andKRAVITCH, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Ja so n A. Mi ll er ap pe al s fr om anord er o f th e d is tri ctco urt d is m is si ng hi sco m

pl ai ntforfai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m . After ath or ou gh rev ie w of the reco rdan d br ie fs , we affi rm . I. Mi ll er o wne d apa rcel of r eal pro pe rty in Hi awas se e, Geo rg ia , whi chhe ob ta in edby secu rin g am ortg ag e lo anfro m th e p red eces so r of

th e d efen da nt , Ch as e Hom e Fi nanc e, LLC (Ch as e). InFeb ru ary 20 09 , Mil le r reque st eda lo an m od ifi cat io n fr om

Ch as e, ci ti ng fin an ci al di ffi cu lt ie s. Ch as e ag reedto tem po rari ly m od ify the term s o f Mi ll er’s l oa n a gr eem en t, b utinAug us t 2 01 0, Ch as e n ot ifi ed Mi ll er tha t i t wo ul d n otex te nda pe rm an en t l oa n m od ifi cat io n t o h im . Co ns eque nt ia ll y , Mil le r fi le d s ui t, al le gi ng th atCh as e fai le d t o c om pl y with it s o bl ig at io ns un de r th e fed eral Hom e Affo rd ab le Mo di fic at io n P ro gr am (HAMP) by decl in in g t o i ss ue hi m a pe rm an en t l oa n m od ifi cat io n. Acco rd in g t o M il le r, th is fai lu re g av e ri se to cla im s fo r (1 ) br each of c on tra ct , (2) bre ach of t he im pl ie d co ve nantof g oo d fa ith a ndfai r de al in g, an d (3 ) pr om is so ry est op pe l. The di st ric t co urt d is m is se d M il le r’s co m pl ai ntforfai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m , fin di ng th atHAMP do es no t p ro vi de a pr iv at e cau se of a ct io n a ndth at , eve n i f hi s cl ai m s wer e in de pe nd en t o f HAMP, the y fai le d a s a m at te r of

law. Mil le r ap pe al s. 1
The district cour

t also denied Miller’s r equest for leave to amend his complaint to add a 1 claim of ne g lige nt implementation of HAMP, finding that Mill er c ould not demonstrate that Chase owe d him a leg al duty under H AMP sufficient to state a neg lige nce c laim. Although 2II.

W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is m is sa l fo r fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m , in cl ud in g i ts leg al co nc lu si on th atHAMP d oe s n otpro vi de a pr iv at e ri gh t o f act io n, de no vo . Se e Lo ve v. Del ta Air Lin es , 31 0 F .3d13 47 , 13 51 (11 thCir . 20 02 ) (ap pl y in g de no vo rev ie w to de te rm in e whe th er a s ta tu te crea te s a p riv at e rig htof a ct io n) ; McKu si ck v. Ci tyof Melb ou rn e, Fla
. , 96 F.3d47 8, 4 82 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ) (“ De no vo rev ie w app li es to gra nt s o f m ot io ns to di sm is s u nd er Fe de ral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 1 2( b) (6 ) fo r fai lu re t o s tate a cl ai m up on whi chrel ie f can be gra nt ed .”). The p art ie s ag ree tha t Geo rg iasubs tant iv e la w go ve rn s an y pa rt o f Mi ll er’s cl ai m s i nd ep en de ntof HAM P. III. Dur in g the eco no m ic cri si s o f 20 08 , Con gr es s p as se d t he Em erg en cy Eco no m ic Stabi li zat io n Actof 2 00 8 (EESA), 1 2 U.S.C. § § 5 20 1- 52 61 . EESA ch arg es th e Sec ret ary of

th e Uni te d S ta te s Dep art m en t o f th e Treas ury with a ct in g in a m anne r th at“pr es erv es ho m eo wne rs hi p a ndpro m ot es job s an d e co no m ic gr owt h.” Id
. § 5 20 1( 2) (B). To th is en d, the Depa rtment o f th e Treas ury crea te d
Miller attempts to argue that he ha s stated a ne g lige nce c laim in his appellate brief , he does not argue that the district cour t erre d in denying his re quest for le ave to a mend. Thus, his neg lige nce arguments are abandone d. Gree nbriar, Ltd. v. City of Alabaster , 881 F.2d 1570, 1573 n.6 ( 11th Cir. 1989). 3th e Ma ki ng Hom e Affo rd ab le Pro gr am , a pr og ram th atin cl ud edHAMP. HAMP i s d es ig ne d t o p rev en t av oi dabl e h om e fo recl os ur es by inc en ti vi zi ng lo anservi cers to reduc e th e requi redm on th ly m ortg ag e p aym en ts forcert ai n st ru gg li ng ho m eo wne rs . Serv ic ers are o bl ig edto ab id e b y gu id el in es pro m

ul ga te d by the Secr et ary whe n d et erm in in g am ortg ag or ’s eli gi bi li ty for a p erm an en t l oa n m od ifi cat io n. U.S. Dep ’t of Trea su ry , Mak in g Ho m e Affo rd ab le Pro gr am , Han db oo k fo r Serv ic ers of No n- GSE Mo rtg ag es at 2 7 (De c. 15 , 20 11 ). To as su re th atservi cers co m

pl y with the gu id el in es , th e Sec ret ary de si gn at edFred di e Ma c to co nduc t co m

pl ianc e as se ss m en ts of HAM P p art ic ip an ts . Id
. Neithe r HAMP n or EESA exp res sl y

crea te s a p riv at e ri gh t o f act io n fo r bo rro wers ag ai ns t l oa n se rv ic ers . Thi s co urt h as no t ad dr es se d, i n apubl is he d o pi ni on , whet he r th ere i s an im pl ie d p riv at e ri gh t o f act io n und er HAMP. In de te rm in in g wh ethe r su cha rem edy ex is ts , th is co urt co ns id ers th e fo ll owi ng qu es ti on s: (1 ) is th e p la in ti ff o ne of t he cla ss forwho se es pe ci al be ne fitth e st atut e was en act ed ; (2 ) is th ere a ny ind ic at io n o f le gi sl at iv e in te nt , ex pl ic itor i m

pl ic it , eit he r to crea te su cha rem edy or t o d en y

on e; (3) is itco ns is te ntwith the un de rlyin g p ur po se s o f th e le gi sl at iv e sc he m e to im pl y a rem edy forth e p la in ti ff; an d (4 ) is th e cau se of a ct io n o ne tra di ti on al ly releg at edto st at e la w, inanareaba si cal ly the co nc ernof th e St at es , so th atitwou ldbe in ap pr op ria te to in fer acau se of a ct io n ba se d s ol el y

onfed eral law.

4Hemis

ph er x Bio ph arma, In c. v. Jo ha nn es bu rg Co ns ol . Inv es . , 55 3 F .3d13 51 , 13 62 n.1 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o mitte d) . Whe n we app ly the se fact or s t o HAMP an d EESA, itis cle ar tha t n o i m pl ie d rig htof a ct io n e xi st s. Fi rs t, EESA an d HAMP were d es ig ne d t o “pr ov id e au th or ity an d fa ci li ti es th atth e Sec ret ary of th e Treas ury

canus e to res to re l iqui di ty and st ab il ity to th e fi na nc ia l s y st em

of t he Uni te d S ta te s.” 1 2 U.S.C. § 52 01 (1 ). EESA was no t p as se d fo r th e “ es pe ci al be ne fit ” o f st ru gg li ng ho m eo wne rs , eve n t ho ug h th ey m ay be ne fitfro m

HAMP’s in cen ti ve s t o l oa n s erv ic ers . Seco nd , th ere i s n o d is cern ib le leg is la ti ve in te ntto crea te a pr iv at e ri gh t o f act io n; infact , th e le gi sl atur e g av e th e Sec ret ary th e ri gh t t o i ni ti at e a caus e o f act io n, v iath e Adm in is tra ti ve Pro cedur e Act . Id
. § 5 22 9( a)(1 ). Thi rd , pro vi di ng a pr iv at e ri gh t o f act io n a ga in stm ortg ag e se rv ic ers co nt rav en es th e p ur po se of HAMP—to en co ur ag e se rv ic ers to m od ify loa ns —b ecau se itwou ldli ke ly chi ll se rv ic er p art ic ip at io n b as edon fearof e xp os ur e to li ti ga ti on . Andfou rth ,

“ [c]on tra ctan d re al pro pe rty law are tra di ti on al ly the do m ai n o f st at e la w.” Fid
. Fed. Sa v. &Lo an Ass ’n v. de la Cu es ta , 45 8 U.S. 1 41 , 17 4 (1 98 2) . Bec au se no ne of t he rel ev an t fa ct or s fa vo r anim pl ie d ri gh t o f act io n, we co nc lu de th atno su chrig htex is ts . Se e Th omp so n v . Tho mps on , 48 4 U.S. 1 74 , 17 9 (1 98 8) (“ The in te ntof C on gr es s re m ai ns th e u lt im at e is su e, ho wev er, an d u nl es s 5th is co ng res si on al in te ntcanbe in ferr edfro m th e lang ua ge of t he st atut e, th e st atut ory stru ctur e, orso m e o th er s ou rce, the ess en ti al pre di cat e fo r im pl ic at io n o f a p riv at e rem edy

si m pl y do es no t ex is t.”) . Mil le r th eref or e la ck s s tand in g t o pu rs ue hi s b reac h o f co ntract , bre ach of i m pl ie d duty

of g oo d fa ith a ndfai r de al in g, an d p ro m is so ry

est op pe l cl ai m s i ns of

ar as th ey are p rem is edon anall eg ed br each of C ha se ’s HAMP ob li ga ti on s. To the ex te ntMi ll er’s cl ai m s fa ll ou ts id e o f th e sc op e o f HAMP, the y fai l as a m atte r of

law. Fi rs t, Mi ll er d oe s n otarg ue on ap pe al th athi s b reac h o f co nt ract cl ai m is in de pe nd en t fr om

Ch as e’s ob li ga ti on s u nd er HAMP. He h as th eref or e ab an do ne d a ny suc h a rg um en t. Gre en br ia r , 88 1 F .2dat 1 57 3 n .6. Bu t M il le r do es arg ue th atCh as e b reac he d i ts du ty of go odfai th an d fa ir d eal in g u nd er h is or ig in al lo anag reem en t b y refu si ng to pe rm an en tl y

m od ify his lo an . Und er Geo rg ialaw, h owe ve r, th atdu ty “ can no t b e b reac he d apa rt f ro m th e co nt ract pr ov is io ns itm od ifi es an d the refo re ca nn otpro vi de anin de pe nd en t b as is for li ab il ity .” Onb ra nd

Media v. Co de

x Co ns ul ti ng , 68 7 S .E.2d16 8, 1 74 (Ga. Ct . App . 20 09 ). Mi ll er al so arg ue s tha t Ch as e is li ab le un de r a the ory of p ro m is so ry

est op pe l fo r de cl in in g t o i ss ue hi m a pe rm an en t l oan m od ifi cat io n. Bu t, as th e d is tri ctco urt em ph as iz ed , reco ve ry

on a th eo ry

of p ro m is so ry

est op pe l u nd er Geo rg ialaw i s 6po ss ib le on ly if th e d efen da ntm ad e a p ro m is e upo n wh ic h t he pl ai nt iff reas on ab ly rel ie d. O.C.G.A. § 1 3- 3- 44 (a). An d h ere, M il le r di d n otsetforth an y factua l al le ga ti on s tha t Ch as e p ro m is edto pe rm an en tl y m od ify the lo an . Ind eed , Mil le r’s al le ga ti on s i nd ic at e th atCh as e to ldMi ll er o nl y th atitwou ldtem

po rari ly mod ify th e te rm s o f hi s l oa n. Acco rd in gl y , Mil le r’s pr om is so ry est op pe l cl ai m

fai ls , reg ard le ss of i ts rel ianc e o n HAMP . AFFIRMED.

7