Martinez v. Cenlar, FSB
United States District Court for the District of Arizona
No. CV-13-00589-TUC-CKJ (2014)

- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
On March 7, 2008, Maria Martinez (plaintiff) bought a house. In 2010 Martinez lost her job and began to struggle making her mortgage payments. On August 26, 2011, Cenlar, FSB (Cenlar) (defendant), Martinez’s loan servicer, signed a contract with the Arizona Department of Housing, agreeing to participate in the Arizona Hardest Hit Fund program (HHF). HHF helped eligible homeowners with mortgage payments. The HHF contract required Cenlar, upon notification that a borrower was approved for HHF, to delay any planned foreclosure sale for 45 days. Martinez became unable to make any mortgage payments, and in April 2012, Cenlar began foreclosure proceedings. In response, Martinez applied to HHF. HHF approved Martinez for assistance and, on June 26, 2012, notified Cenlar of Martinez’s participation in the program. Nevertheless, the foreclosure process continued, and Martinez’s house was sold at auction on July 3, 2012. Martinez sued Cenlar, alleging that it breached its HHF contract by failing to delay the foreclosure sale for 45 days after it received notice of Martinez’s participation in HHF. Cenlar filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Martinez did not have standing to bring a breach-of-contract action based on Cenlar’s contract with the state government. Martinez acknowledged the lack of an express private right of action under HHF but argued that she was an intended beneficiary of the contract.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Jorgenson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.