The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D alleges that it is the holder of a mortgage on Ps' home. On or about June 8, 2009, Ps orally agreed with D to take the steps necessary to enter into a mortgage loan modification. D instructed Ps to stop making payments on their loan. D requested certain financial information, which Ps promptly supplied. Ps alleged that D has failed, and effectively refused, to abide by the oral agreement to modify the existing mortgage loan. Ps received notice that D was proceeding with a foreclosure on their home. Ps sought a temporary restraining order in the Superior Court to prevent the loss of their home. Ps state that, on information and belief, the fair market value of their home is in excess of the mortgage loan balance and any arrearage. D contends that any promise it made to consider Ps for a loan modification was not sufficiently definite as to be binding, Ps’ reliance on its promise was neither reasonable nor detrimental, and (3) the claim for promissory estoppel is preempted by federal law. The gravamen of Ps' complaint is that D promised to engage in negotiations to modify their loan, provided that they took certain 'steps necessary to enter into a mortgage modification.' Ps stopped making payments on their loan and submitted the requested financial information-only to learn subsequently that the bank had initiated foreclosure proceedings against them.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.