From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...
Wigod v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
673 F.3d 547 (2012)
Lori Wigod (plaintiff) obtained a loan from Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (defendant). Wigod sought to modify the terms of the loan under the federal Home Affordable Mortgage Program (HAMP), which was part of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. Wigod was eligible for HAMP and Wells Fargo granted Wigod a trial period loan modification, which was standard under HAMP. Wigod made all required payments and complied with all HAMP terms during the trial period, but Wells Fargo declined to provide her with a permanent loan modification after the trial period ended. Wells Fargo claimed that upon reevaluation of Wigod’s eligibility, Wigod was not eligible for a permanent loan modification under HAMP. Wigod claimed Wells Fargo’s second eligibility determination was never disclosed to her and was based on an incorrect calculation of her property taxes. Wigod brought a class action suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Wigod asserted several state law claims, including (1) breach of contract, on the ground that Wells Fargo promised to provide Wigod a permanent modification if she made timely payments during the trial period and her eligibility disclosures remained true; (2) promissory estoppel, on the ground that Wigod relied on the promised modification under HAMP and thus forwent other opportunities to obtain relief from her loan; (3) negligent hiring and supervision of Wells Fargo’s customer service representatives; (4) fraudulent misrepresentation; (5) fraudulent concealment of the fact that Wells Fargo would reevaluate Wigod’s eligibility; (6) negligent misrepresentation and concealment; and (7) Illinois’s Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA). The district court dismissed Wigod’s complaint in full for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, on the ground that HAMP and its enabling statute did not provide borrowers a private right of action to enforce HAMP. Wigod appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Hamilton, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 219,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 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.