indicated that she was qualified and promised further paperwork to complete the process.It never happened.In sum, the defendants “have serially delayed and obstructed the Plaintiff’s efforts atmodification to pad their revenues and protect their financial interest to the detriment of Plaintiff in violation of the federal mandates included with Defendants’ acceptance of Troubled Asset Relief Program (“TARP”)” funding. The Complaint posits several formsof financial advantage that she infers the defendants have sought to realize by delayingand denying modification.
By the time of the Complaint, the defendants had instituted a“non-judicial foreclosure action” against the plaintiff. This presumably refers to an action brought to comply with the Servicemembers’ Relief Act. See 50 U.S.C. App.§§ 501
., implemented in Massachusetts by the Acts of 1943, c. 57, reprinted after G.L. c.244, §14.With her opposition to the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, the plaintiff submitted anaffidavit. This provides considerably more detail than the Complaint concerning her dealings with the Bank from October 2009, when she first contacted it about a loanmodification, through the latter part of 2010. The affidavit is further discussed below,insofar as it is relevant to this Motion.
DISCUSSION1. Standard of Review.
When evaluating the legal sufficiency of a complaint pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the Court accepts as true all factual allegations in the complaint, and draws allreasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Berish v. Bornstein, 437 Mass. 252, 267(2002). The Court’s review is ordinarily limited to the four corners of the Complaint, see