On April 19, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that there is no implied private right of action under the federal Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). Miller v. Chase Home Financing, LLC, No. 11-15166 (11th Cir. Apr. 19, 2012). In this case, the servicer agreed to enter into a temporary modification of the borrower’s mortgage under HAMP, but later notified the borrower that it would not extend a permanent modification. The borrower alleged that the servicer failed to comply with its obligations under HAMP and sued the servicer claiming (i) breach of contract, (ii) breach of implied covenant of food faith and fair dealing, and (iii) promissory estoppel. The district court dismissed the case because (i) HAMP does not provide an express or implied private right of action and (ii) the claims otherwise fail as a matter of law. On appeal, the court upheld the district court dismissal, holding, without oral argument, that there is no discernable legislative intent to create a private right of action and noting that such a right would contravene the purpose of HAMP as servicers fearing litigation would limit their participation in the program. Last month, the Seventh Circuit held that a plaintiff bringing claims against a servicer based on similar fact pattern could maintain a suit against the servicer. That case is distinguishable, however, because while the borrower was not able to state a cause of action for a breach of HAMP directly, the borrower properly pled claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel based on the servicer’s promise to offer a permanent modification. In that case the Seventh Circuit also held that the borrower sufficiently pled fraudulent misrepresentation and state statutory fraud claims, and that those claims were not preempted by federal law.