Program, and stated: “[t]his Plan will not take effect unless and until both I and the Lender sign it and Lender provides me with a copy of this Plan with the Lender’s signature.” (Id.). The. only copy in the record is signed by Mrs. Brush but not by Wells Fargo. (Docket Entry No. 37-2, Ex. 23). The Brushes do not allege that they received a copy of. the letter signed by Wells Fargo. In Pennington v. HSBC Bank USA N.A., 493 Fed.Appx. 548 (5th Cir.2012), the Fifth Circuit considered the absence of the lender’s signature dispositive, holding that if the bank does not sign and return the TPP document, it does “not form a contract, because the bank never expressed an intent to be bound.” Id. at 554; see also Soin v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, 2012 WL 1232324, at *5 (E.D.Cal. Apr. 12, 2012) (<HOLDING>). The Fifth Circuit also held that the lender’s
holding that a bank had no duty to inform other lenders of its borrowers financial problems even though those other lenders funds were used to pay off the borrowers debt to the bank holding district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the document before the district court in this instance is not a vehicle for any recognized legal remedy under the rules holding that mers lacked standing to foreclose as the lenders nominee holding invalid a similar hamp tpp document that lacked the lenders signature holding that the lenders excess withdrawal of soft costs warranted the equitable subordination of the lenders claim because the depletion of the funds available for construction and its attendant impact on the trusts renovation efforts was a sufficiently concrete harm to the trusts other creditors 