Summary
The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Aurora Loan Services, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, and Freddie Mac in Alison Brisbin’s challenge to the foreclosure and sale of her Minnesota home. The court held that Minnesota’s foreclosure-by-advertisement statute did not apply because the sale was never actually postponed, and that the Minnesota Credit Agreement Statute barred enforcement of an oral promise to postpone the sale. The court also held that Brisbin failed to present sufficient evidence of detrimental reliance to support her negligent and intentional misrepresentation claims.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Minnesota Statutes section 580.07, subdivision 1, required publication of a postponement notice or invalidated the foreclosure sale when the sale was never actually postponed.
- Whether an oral promise to postpone a foreclosure sale is a credit agreement or financial accommodation governed by Minnesota's Credit Agreement Statute.
- Whether Brisbin presented sufficient evidence of detrimental reliance to create a genuine issue of material fact on her negligent and intentional misrepresentation claims.
Holdings
- Minnesota Statutes section 580.07, subdivision 1, requires notice of postponement only when a foreclosure sale is actually postponed. Because the sale was not postponed, the statute did not apply and could not invalidate the properly noticed sale.
- An oral promise to postpone a foreclosure sale is a credit agreement and financial accommodation under Minnesota Statutes section 513.33. Because the alleged agreement was not in a signed writing satisfying the statute, it could not be enforced through promissory estoppel.
- Brisbin's conclusory assertion that she was very confident unnamed friends would have loaned her enough money to reinstate the mortgage was insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding detrimental reliance.
Key quotations
“A plain reading of the statute indicates that notice of postponement is only required when a foreclosure sale actually is postponed by the mortgagee.” (679 F.3d at 752)
“Because foreclosure is a means of enforcing a debt, a promise to postpone the foreclosure sale falls squarely within the plain meaning of a forbearance agreement and is thus a "credit agreement" within the meaning of the statute.” (679 F.3d at 752)
“Thus, we conclude that the MCAS prohibits the enforcement of an oral promise to postpone a foreclosure sale and that the lender was entitled to summary judgment on Brisbin's promissory estoppel claim.” (679 F.3d at 753)
Factual background
Brisbin purchased an Emerson Avenue home in Minneapolis in 2006 with a $248,000 mortgage and a $62,000 second mortgage. After becoming delinquent during the 2008 housing crisis, she sought forbearance and then a loan modification. The lender told her that the foreclosure sale would be postponed while it considered her modification request, but it nevertheless purchased the property at the originally scheduled October 23, 2009 sale. Brisbin was not informed of the completed sale until April 2010, and she did not pay the amount required to rescind the sale before filing suit.
Procedural history
Brisbin challenged the foreclosure sale of her home based on alleged noncompliance with Minnesota's foreclosure-by-advertisement statute, an oral promise to postpone the sale, an alleged HAMP third-party-beneficiary theory, and misrepresentation claims. The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all counts. The Eighth Circuit reviewed the judgment de novo and affirmed.