existence of an extra-contractual duty between the parties, giving rise to a cause of action in tort separate from one based on the contract itself. The plaintiffs do not argue that their negligence claim falls into one of the three recognized exceptions, but they attempt to fashion a duty from the note-and-mortgage contract, from common law, and from GMAC Mortgage’s obligations under RES-PA. See PI. Reply Br. 8-15. However, each duty that the plaintiffs identify has its root in the note-and-mortgage contract itself. No matter GMAC Mortgage’s failings, the contract itself cannot give rise to an extra-contractual duty without some showing of a fiduciary relationship between the parties. See Judd v. First Federal Sav. & Loan Ass’n of Indianapolis, 710 F.2d 1237, 1241-Í2 (7th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>); Ploog v. HomeSide Lending. Inc., 209
holding an employee manual did not create contract restricting the employmentatwill relationship holding under indiana law that mortgage contract did not create a trust requiring the mortgagee to account to the mortgagors as beneficiaries nor did it transform a traditional debtorcreditor relationship into a fiduciary relationship holding that relationship between executor and estates beneficiaries is one that gives rise to fiduciary duty as matter of law holding that while the contract did not establish a formal fiduciary relationship the pleadings were sufficient to raise an issue as to the existence of an informal one holding that a mortgagee could enforce mortgage covenants requiring the mortgagors to keep the property free of encumbrances even after it foreclosed by advertisement and purchased the property for the full amount of the mortgage debt because the mortgage covenants concerned title to the mortgaged property rather than repayment of the debt