Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Dionne v. Federal National Mortgage Association

United States District Court, D. New Hampshire

August 31, 2016

Jason S. Dionne, et al.
v.
Federal National Mortgage Association and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Opinion No. 2016 DNH 155

          David E. Buckley, Esq.

          Nathan Reed Fennessy, Esq.

          Gary Goldberg, Esq.

          Andrea Bopp Stark, Esq.

          ORDER

          Landya McCafferty United States District Judge.

         Plaintiffs originally filed this mortgage foreclosure dispute in New Hampshire Superior Court, Hillsborough County, Southern District. Defendants Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase”) removed the lawsuit to this court. Defendants move to exclude the opinions and proposed testimony of plaintiffs' proposed expert, Diane Cipollone. Plaintiffs object.

         Background[1]

         Denise Dionne has lived at her home at 40 Tallant Road in Pelham, New Hampshire (the “property”) since 1977. In 2005, Denise added her son, Jason Dionne, to the property's deed. In 2006, Denise, Jason, and Jason's wife, Kathy Dionne (collectively, the “Dionnes”), took out a loan, which was secured by a mortgage on the property. The mortgage states that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) is the mortgagee as nominee for the lender, Domestic Bank.

         MERS assigned the mortgage and note to Washington Mutual Bank (“Mutual Bank”) in 2008. Chase obtained the mortgage and note when it acquired Mutual Bank later in 2008. In 2010, Chase assigned the mortgage to Fannie Mae. Chase also acted as the loan servicer at all times relevant to this case. The Dionnes allege that they were in default on their obligations under the note when Mutual Bank and Chase obtained the loan, and when Chase began servicing the loan.

         In 2010, the Dionnes' loan was modified after they fell behind on their loan payments. Sometime after the 2010 loan modification, the Dionnes again fell behind on their modified loan payment obligations.

         In August 2014, Chase sent the Dionnes[2] a letter informing them that “the foreclosure sale date has been rescheduled” for October 1, 2014.[3] Doc. no. 21-2 at 1. Chase did not serve or deliver the letter via registered or certified mail. After receiving the letter informing them of the rescheduled foreclosure date, the Dionnes completed a loss mitigation application (which they downloaded from Chase's website) seeking a modification of their loan.

         Over the next several months, the Dionnes submitted and resubmitted various documents Chase requested with regard to the loan modification application. Chase sent several contradictory letters over that time frame to the Dionnes, with some indicating that it had received all the necessary documents and others indicating that it had not received certain documents and requesting those documents from the Dionnes.

         On January 12, 2015, the Dionnes' home was sold at a foreclosure sale, despite their pending loan modification ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.