In Nelson v. Bank of America, N.A., et al (11-11091), the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's conclusion that the United States Treasury’s Home Affordable Mortgage Program (HAMP) program does not provide a private right of action. The court stated:
This Court has not addressed in a published opinion the issue of whether HAMP provides for a private right of action, but a host of district courts that have done so have held that it does not. See, e.g., Mosley v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 2:11cv268, — F. Supp. 2d — , 2011 WL 3439243, at *3 (E.D. Va. Aug. 5, 2011); Cox v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., Civil No. 10-4626, — F. Supp. 2d —, 2011 WL 2600700, at *3 (D. Minn. June 30, 2011); Melton v. Suntrust Bank, Civil No. 2:11cv204, — F. Supp. 2d —, 2011 WL 1630273, at *1 (E.D. Va. April 21, 2011); Hart v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 735 F. Supp. 2d 741, 748 (E.D. Mich. 2010); Pantoja v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 640 F. Supp. 2d 1177, 1185 (N.D. Cal. 2009). We agree with those courts, and with the district court in the present case, that nothing express or implied in HAMP gives borrowers a private right of action. See Thompson v. Thompson, 484 U.S. 174, 179, 108 S.Ct. 513, 516 (1988) (“The intent of Congress remains the ultimate issue, however, and unless this congressional intent can be inferred from the language of the statute, the statutory structure, or some other source, the essential predicate for implication of a private remedy simply does not exist.”) (quotation marks omitted).