A wave of putative class actions on home loan modifications is building. Cases have been filed on the East and West coasts. At the moment, two contract theories are most prominent. First, plaintiffs allege that they have standing to sue lenders for not making modifications under the Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”) and for not abiding by the Treasury Department’s guidelines, because plaintiffs are third party beneficiaries under the servicer participation agreements. Second, plaintiffs allege that the form trial payment plan (“TTP”) itself is a contract requiring lenders to automatically convert to a permanent loan modification so long as borrowers make three qualifying loan payments and submit the required paperwork. But, if valid, the TTP theory would eliminate the lenders’ use of borrower income verification, the Net Present Value test and the 31% cap on net monthly income to mortgage expenses, all of which are contrary to the basic elements of HAMP. A secondary theory of liability involves a due process challenge with claims alleging that lenders failed to provide borrowers with written adverse action notices and an appeals process after the denial of a HAMP loan modification