In the HAMP context, a New York court concluded that, "an alleged breach of the [HAMP Service Provider] Agreement cannot form the basis of a defense, because [the borrower] cannot be considered an intended beneficiary of the Agreement, as there is neither evidence nor allegation that it was [the bank's] intention to benefit homeowners in entering into the Agreement." Wells Fargo Bank v. Small, 2010 N.Y. Slip Op 30424U, *5, 2010 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2478 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. Feb. 16, 2010).* * *
In the HAMP context, a New York court concluded that, "an alleged breach of the [HAMP Service Provider] Agreement cannot form the basis of a defense, because [the borrower] cannot be considered an intended beneficiary of the Agreement, as there is neither evidence nor allegation that it was [the bank's] intention to benefit homeowners in entering into the Agreement." Wells Fargo Bank v. Small, 2010 NY Slip Op 30424U, *5, 2010 NY Misc. LEXIS 2478 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 16, 2010). {¶ 16} Carpenter contends that there is a genuine issue of material fact whether the evaluation she received conformed with Freddie Mac Bulletin 2009-28 and the Treasury's Supplemental Directive 09-08.