Opinion ID: 1744061
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Stones' Breach-of-Contract Claim

Text: The Stones alleged a breach of contract in the first count of their complaint. First, the Stones allege that when they executed the note, they agreed to pay principal, interest, a loan charge, and the costs and expenses associated with collection should they default on their note, and they argue that the parties did not contemplate fax fees when they entered into the loan contract and that for Mellon to charge a fax fee violates the terms of the note. We are persuaded by the rationale set forth in Cappellini v. Mellon Mortgage Co., 991 F.Supp. 31 (D.Mass.1997), where the court rejected this same argument: It would be difficult for form notes and mortgages that cover long time periods to anticipate and include each and every such incidental special request made by a borrower. Here the plaintiff was asking for faxed payoff statements in order to receive refinancing and take advantage of lower interest rates. To say that a borrower can make such requests for his or her own benefit, yet, under a principle such as contra proferentum, never allow the mortgage servicer to charge for the services unless they are specified in the loan documents would be an unreasonable interpretation of the contracts. Mellon provides certain basic services to the borrower free of charge, including up to four payoff statements a year, sent by U.S. mail. Because the plaintiff could have discharged the mortgage through the use of this free service, but for convenience chose to have payoff statements faxed, it is not forbidden by the language of the Note and Mortgage to charge a fee for the extra services. Id. at 39-40. We conclude that Mellon did not violate the terms of the note by charging the Stones the fax fee. The Stones next contend that Mellon's including the fax fee in the amount given in the payoff statement violated the terms of the mortgage because, according to the Stones, the effect of the term TOTAL TO PAY LOAN IN FULL, used in reference to a figure that included the fax fee, was to condition the release of the mortgage on the Stones' paying the fax fee in addition to those expenses specified by the mortgage. Paragraph 21 of the mortgage, entitled Release, states: Upon payment of all sums secured by this Security Instrument, Lender shall release this Security Instrument without charge to Borrower. Borrower shall pay any recordation costs. This language states that the mortgage will be released upon payment of the secured sums (principal and interest) and any recordation fees. Indeed, if Mellon had in fact withheld the release of the Stones' mortgage until they paid the fax fee, Mellon's policy would have violated the terms of the mortgage. We find no breach of contract in the simple imposition of a fax fee. As we discuss later in connection with the Stones' claims based on the theories of unjust enrichment and money had and received, the Stones' agent incurred the fax fee for expedited services and charging the Stones for it did not breach the terms of the mortgage. See Cappellini v. Mellon Mortgage Co., supra. In addition, the payoff statement purports to state a sum that would be the Total To Pay Loan in Full, rather than the Total To Pay Loan in Full and Discharge Security Instrument. We conclude that the record before us does not suggest a breach of the terms of the mortgage. We agree with what the Washington Court of Appeals wrote in Cain v. Source One Mortgage Services Corp., 97 Wash.App. 1014 (1999) (notation of unpublished opinion). [1] On similar facts, that court held that charging the fax fee and listing it on the payoff statement did not breach the terms of the contract. That court also declined to address the question whether the payoff statement gave the misleading impression that the mortgage would not be released unless the fee was paid, because, that court held, the plaintiffs' fraud claims were barred by the running of the limitations period. Id. We, likewise, decline to address that question, because the Stones did not allege fraud as a theory of recovery and, if they had alleged fraud, their fraud claim would have been barred by the statute of limitations; this action was filed nearly three years after the closing on the refinancing loan. The trial court properly entered the summary judgment in favor of Mellon on the breach-of-contract claim.