Opinion ID: 2794720
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The TPP Contract

Text: The Berrys challenge the district court’s holding that the TPP was not a binding contract because Chase never signed it. This court has previously held that if a “TPP expressly requires that before the contract is final, the lender must send a signed copy to the borrower,” a contract is not created when the borrower signs the TPP and begins to perform. Pennington v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 493 F. App’x 548, at 554 (5th Cir. 2012). Here, the TPP states: I understand that after I sign and return one copy of this Plan to the Lender, the Lender will send me a signed copy of this Plan if I qualify for the Offer or will send me written notice that I do not qualify for the Offer. This Plan will not take effect unless and until both the Lender and I sign it and Lender provides me with a copy of this Plan with the Lender's signature. There is no evidence in the record that the Berrys ever received a fully executed copy of the TPP from Chase. The only copy of the TPP in the record contains Darryl Berry’s signature and a blank signature line for Chase. Contrary to the Berrys’ argument, the acknowledgement letter from Chase confirming 3 Case: 14-10474 Document: 00513010268 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/17/2015 No. 14-10474 receipt of the Berrys’ TPP application shows that Chase did not intend to be bound by the TPP until it returned a signed copy of the agreement. There is, therefore, no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the parties entered a binding TPP contract. We affirm the district court.