Vatche Manoukian v. PennyMac Loan Services, LLC

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2016-0035, Vatche Manoukian v. PennyMac
Loan Services, LLC, the court on September 19, 2016, issued the
following order:

Having considered the brief, memorandum of law, and record submitted
on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See
Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). We affirm.

The plaintiff, Vatche Manoukian, appeals the order of the Superior Court
(Garfunkel, J.) requiring him to accept the loan modification terms proposed by
the defendant, PennyMac Loan Services, LLC, to avoid the foreclosure of his
residence. The plaintiff rejected the defendant’s proposal, and the trial court
granted his motion to stay the foreclosure sale to allow this appeal.

On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the defendant acted in bad faith in
proposing a loan modification. He asserts that the purpose of a loan
modification is to “make the home more affordable,” and that the defendant’s
proposal failed to accomplish this purpose because it required an immediate
payment of $283,600 and monthly payments no lower than those required
under the existing loan agreement, with the same interest rate. The plaintiff
does not argue that he was unable to pay the $283,600 or the monthly
mortgage payments that would have been due thereafter. We note that he
represented to the defendant on his loan modification application that he earns
gross monthly income of $26,360.

We will uphold the trial court’s findings unless they are unsupported by
the evidence or erroneous as a matter of law. Porter v. Town of Sanbornton,
150 N.H. 363, 369 (2003). At the December 23, 2015 foreclosure hearing, the
trial court noted that the plaintiff had made no monthly payments on the loan
for six years, and that the defendant’s proposed modification would have
allowed him to avoid foreclosure by paying approximately one-half of what he
then owed under the existing terms of the loan. Assuming, without deciding,
that the defendant had a duty to act in good faith in proposing a loan
modification, we conclude that the record supports the trial court’s implied
finding that the defendant acted in good faith. See id.

The plaintiff also argues that the defendant acted in bad faith in dealing
with him regarding an August 5, 2015 foreclosure sale of the same residence.
The record shows that the defendant voluntarily voided the sale when it
discovered that it had neglected to notify two junior lienholders who would not
agree, after the sale, to waive the notice requirement. It is the burden of the
appealing party, here the plaintiff, to provide this court with a record sufficient
to decide his issues on appeal, as well as to demonstrate that he raised his
issues before the trial court. Bean v. Red Oak Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248, 250
(2004); State v. Porter, 144 N.H. 96, 100-01 (1999) (Rules of preservation are
not relaxed for a self-represented party.). The plaintiff has failed to provide a
record sufficient to show that he raised this issue with the trial court. Nor did
he raise the issue in his notice of appeal. Accordingly, the issue is waived. See
Brunelle v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 161 N.H. 64, 69 (2010).

To the extent that the plaintiff’s brief raises additional arguments, we
conclude that they are insufficiently developed, see State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H.
47, 49 (2003), and warrant no further consideration, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137
N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

Affirmed.

Hicks, Conboy, and Lynn, JJ., concurred.

Eileen Fox,
Clerk

2