Opinion ID: 2815245
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Dual-tracking

Text: Finally, Chadwick argues the district court erred in granting summary judgment because there was a jury question as to whether BANA exercised its power of sale unfairly. Specifically, Chadwick challenges BANA’s practice of dual-tracking, whereby BANA simultaneously pursued a foreclosure on Chadwick’s home while considering him for a loan modification. According to Chadwick, BANA’s dual-tracking lulled him into thinking he was no longer at risk of foreclosure. The subsequent foreclosure surprised him and was unfair. Certain state legislatures, such as California, have passed laws forbidding dual tracking. See, e.g., Cal. Civ. Code § 2923.6(c). Georgia law, however, does not support a cause-of-action for wrongful foreclosure simply because a bank pursues modification and foreclosure at the same time. Cf. Moore v. McCalla Raymer, LLC, 916 F. Supp. 2d 1332, 1343 (N.D. Ga. 2013) (“seeking a loan modification does not give Plaintiff a cause of action for wrongful foreclosure”). The two cases Chadwick cites are not on point because in both cases the bank affirmatively represented it would not pursue foreclosure, and then later sandbagged the borrower. See, e.g., Joseph v. Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp., 2012 WL 5429639, at  (N.D. Ga. Nov. 6, 2012) (wrongful foreclosure claim when bank told borrower, in writing, to “stop making payments in order to receive a permanent modification”); Stimus v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 2011 WL 2610391, at 11 Case: 14-14555 Date Filed: 07/08/2015 Page: 12 of 12  (M.D. Ga. July 1, 2011) (wrongful foreclosure claim when bank told borrower “the modification of her mortgage had been approved” and represented “the property would not be foreclosed upon”). That is not the situation here, where BANA has repeatedly expressed its intent to enforce the terms of the Security Deed and pursue foreclosure.3 Accordingly, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of BANA. 4