In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
No. 11-1423
LORI WIGOD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 1:10-cv-02348—Blanche M. Manning, Judge.
ARGUED OCTOBER 26, 2011—DECIDED MARCH 7, 2012

<excerpts>

HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. We are asked in this appeal

to determine whether Lori Wigod has stated claims

under Illinois law against her home mortgage servicer

for refusing to modify her loan pursuant to the federal

Home Affordable Mortgage Program (HAMP).

—

She brought this putative class action alleging violations

of Illinois law under common-law contract and tort

theories and under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and

Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA). The district

court dismissed the complaint in its entirety under

Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

—

This appeal followed, and it presents two sets of issues.

The first set of issues concerns whether Wigod

has stated viable claims under Illinois common law and

the ICFA. We conclude that she has on four counts …

—

These allegations support garden-variety

claims for breach of contract or promissory estoppel.

She has also plausibly alleged that Wells Fargo com-

mitted fraud under Illinois common law and engaged in

unfair or deceptive business practices in violation of the

ICFA.

—

The second set of issues concerns whether these

state-law claims are preempted or otherwise barred by

federal law. We hold that they are not.

—

We accordingly reverse the judgment of

the district court on the contract, promissory estoppel,

fraudulent misrepresentation, and ICFA claims …

—

IV. Conclusion

The judgment of the district court is therefore

REVERSEDas to Counts I, II, and VII, and the

fraudulent misrepresentation claim of Count V …

—

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge, concurring. I am very pleased

to join the excellent opinion of the court written by

Judge Hamilton. I write separately only to note that, in

my view, our task of adjudicating this matter would

have been assisted significantly if the United States had

entered this case as an amicus curiae.

—

In this case, this last consideration justifies the

decision to proceed without further delay. Prompt resolution

of this matter is necessary not only for the good

of the litigants but for the good of the Country.

~

4closureFraud.org

~

Lori Wigod v. Wells Fargo