Tag Archives: litigation

No right to “HAMP” as third party bene try Negligence with a side of “HAMP”

26 Oct

For all those who have found out the hard way that judges do not like a breach of HAMP contract cause of action, here is a way around it: sue for negligent handling of the HAMP application and use this citation in your opposition to demurrer:

“It is well established that a person may become liable in tort for negligently failing to perform a voluntarily assumed undertaking even in the absence of a contract so to do. A person may not be required to perform a service for another but he may undertake to do so — called a voluntary undertaking. In such a case the person undertaking to perform the service is under a duty to exercise due care in performing the voluntarily assumed duty, and a failure to exercise due care is negligence. [emphasis added]” Valdez v. Taylor Auto. Co. (1954) 129 Cal.App.2d 810, 817; Aim Ins. Co. v. Culcasi (1991) 229 Cal. App. 3d 209, 217-218.

Judge Firmat posted these notes on the law and motion calendar to assist attorneys pleading various theories in wrongful foreclosure cases etc

4 Oct

Orange County (Cali) Superior Court Judge Firmat posted these notes on
the law and motion calendar to assist attorneys pleading various
theories in wrongful foreclosure cases etc.  Some interesting
points….

FOOTNOTES TO DEPT. C-15 LAW AND MOTION CALENDARS

Note 1 – Cause of Action Under CCC § 2923.5, Post Trustee’s Sale –
There is no private right of action under Section 2923.5 once the
trustee’s sale has occurred.  The “only remedy available under the
Section is a postponement of the sale before it happens.”  Mabry v.
Superior  Court, 185 Cal. App. 4th 208, 235 (2010).

Note 2 – Cause of Action Under CCC § 2923.6 – There is no private
right of action under Section 2923.6, and it does not operate
substantively.  Mabry v. Superior Court, 185 Cal. App. 4th 208,
222-223 (2010).  “Section 2923.6 merely expresses the hope that
lenders will offer loan modifications on certain terms.”  Id. at 222.

Note 3 – Cause of Action for Violation of CCC §§ 2923.52 and / or
2923.53 – There is no private right of action.  Vuki v. Superior
Court, 189 Cal. App. 4th 791, 795 (2010).

Note 4 –  Cause of Action for Fraud, Requirement of Specificity – “To
establish a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation, the plaintiff must
prove: (1) the defendant represented to the plaintiff that an
important fact was true; (2) that representation was false; (3) the
defendant knew that the representation was false when the defendant
made it, or the defendant made the representation recklessly and
without regard for its truth; (4) the defendant intended that the
plaintiff rely on the representation; (5) the plaintiff reasonably
relied on the representation; (6) the plaintiff was harmed; and, (7)
the plaintiff’s reliance on the defendant’s representation was a
substantial factor in causing that harm to the plaintiff. Each element
in a cause of action for fraud must be factually and specifically
alleged. In a fraud claim against a corporation, a plaintiff must
allege the names of the persons who made the misrepresentations, their
authority to speak for the corporation, to whom they spoke, what they
said or wrote, and when it was said or written.”  Perlas v. GMAC
Mortg., LLC, 187 Cal. App. 4th 429, 434 (2010) (citations and
quotations omitted).

Note 5 –Fraud – Statute of Limitations- The statute of limitations for
fraud is three years.  CCP § 338(d).  To the extent Plaintiff wishes
to rely on the delayed discovery rule, Plaintiff must plead the
specific facts showing (1) the time and manner of discovery and (2)
the inability to have made earlier discovery despite reasonable
diligence.”  Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 35 Cal. 4th 797, 808
(2005).

Note 6 – Cause of Action for Negligent Misrepresentation – “The
elements of negligent misrepresentation are (1) the misrepresentation
of a past or existing material fact, (2) without reasonable ground for
believing it to be true, (3) with intent to induce another’s reliance
on the fact misrepresented, (4) justifiable reliance on the
misrepresentation, and (5) resulting damage.  While there is some
conflict in the case law discussing the precise degree of
particularity required in the pleading of a claim for negligent
misrepresentation, there is a consensus that the causal elements,
particularly the allegations of reliance, must be specifically
pleaded.”  National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Cambridge
Integrated Services Group, Inc., 171 Cal. App. 4th 35, 50 (2009)
(citations and quotations omitted).

Note 7 – Cause of Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty by Lender –
“Absent special circumstances a loan transaction is at arm’s length
and there is no fiduciary relationship between the borrower and
lender. A commercial lender pursues its own economic interests in
lending money. A lender owes no duty of care to the borrowers in
approving their loan. A lender is under no duty to determine the
borrower’s ability to repay the loan. The lender’s efforts to
determine the creditworthiness and ability to repay by a borrower are
for the lender’s protection, not the borrower’s.”  Perlas v. GMAC
Mortg., LLC, 187 Cal. App. 4th 429, 436 (2010) (citations and
quotations omitted).

Note 8 – Cause of Action for Constructive Fraud – “A relationship need
not be a fiduciary one in order to give rise to constructive fraud.
Constructive fraud also applies to nonfiduciary “confidential
relationships.” Such a confidential relationship may exist whenever a
person with justification places trust and confidence in the integrity
and fidelity of another. A confidential relation exists between two
persons when one has gained the confidence of the other and purports
to act or advise with the other’s interest in mind. A confidential
relation may exist although there is no fiduciary relation ….”
Tyler v. Children’s  Home Society, 29 Cal. App. 4th 511, 549 (1994)
(citations and quotations omitted).

Note 9 – Cause of Action for an Accounting – Generally, there is no
fiduciary duty between a lender and borrower.  Perlas v. GMAC Mortg.,
LLC, 187 Cal. App. 4th 429, 436 (2010).  Further, Plaintiff (borrower)
has not alleged any facts showing that a balance would be due from the
Defendant lender to Plaintiff.  St. James Church of Christ Holiness v.
Superior Court, 135 Cal. App. 2d 352, 359 (1955).  Any other duty to
provide an accounting only arises when a written request for one is
made prior to the NTS being recorded.  CCC § 2943(c).

Note 10 – Cause of Action for Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good
Faith and Fair Dealing – “[W]ith the exception of bad faith insurance
cases, a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing permits
a recovery solely in contract.  Spinks v. Equity Residential Briarwood
Apartments, 171 Cal. App. 4th 1004, 1054 (2009).  In order to state a
cause of action for Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and
Fair Dealing, a valid contract between the parties must be alleged.
The implied covenant cannot be extended to create obligations not
contemplated by the contract.  Racine & Laramie v. Department of Parks
and Recreation, 11 Cal. App. 4th 1026, 1031-32 (1992).

Note 11 – Cause of Action for Breach of Contract – “A cause of action
for damages for breach of contract is comprised of the following
elements: (1) the contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for
nonperformance, (3) defendant’s breach, and (4) the resulting damages
to plaintiff. It is elementary that one party to a contract cannot
compel another to perform while he himself is in default. While the
performance of an allegation can be satisfied by allegations in
general terms, excuses must be pleaded specifically.”  Durell v. Sharp
Healthcare, 183 Cal. App. 4th 1350, 1367 (2010) (citations and
quotations omitted).

Note 12 – Cause of Action for Injunctive Relief – Injunctive relief is
a remedy and not a cause of action.  Guessous v. Chrome Hearts, LLC,
179 Cal. App. 4th 1177, 1187 (2009).

Note 13 – Cause of Action for Negligence – “Under the common law,
banks ordinarily have limited duties to borrowers. Absent special
circumstances, a loan does not establish a fiduciary relationship
between a commercial bank and its debtor. Moreover, for purposes of a
negligence claim, as a general rule, a financial institution owes no
duty of care to a borrower when the institution’s involvement in the
loan transaction does not exceed the scope of its conventional role as
a mere lender of money. As explained in Sierra-Bay Fed. Land Bank
Assn. v. Superior Court (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 318, 334, 277 Cal.Rptr.
753, “[a] commercial lender is not to be regarded as the guarantor of
a borrower’s success and is not liable for the hardships which may
befall a borrower. It is simply not tortious for a commercial lender
to lend money, take collateral, or to foreclose on collateral when a
debt is not paid. And in this state a commercial lender is privileged
to pursue its own economic interests and may properly assert its
contractual rights.”  Das v. Bank of America, N.A., 186 Cal. App. 4th
727, 740-741 (2010) (citations and quotations omitted).

Note 14 – Cause of Action to Quiet Title – To assert a cause of action
to quiet title, the complaint must be verified and meet the other
pleading requirements set forth in CCP § 761.020.

Note 15 – Causes of Action for Slander of Title – The recordation of
the Notice of Default and Notice of Trustee’s Sale are privileged
under CCC § 47, pursuant to CCC § 2924(d)(1), and the recordation of
them cannot support a cause of action for slander of title against the
trustee.  Moreover, “[i]n performing acts required by [the article
governing non-judicial foreclosures], the trustee shall incur no
liability for any good faith error resulting from reliance on
information provided in good faith by the beneficiary regarding the
nature and the amount of the default under the secured obligation,
deed of trust, or mortgage. In performing the acts required by [the
article governing nonjudicial foreclosures], a trustee shall not be
subject to [the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act].”  CCC §
2924(b).

Note 16 – Cause of Action for Violation of Civil Code § 1632 – Section
1632, by its terms, does not apply to loans secured by real property.
CCC § 1632(b).

Note 17 – Possession of the original promissory note – “Under Civil
Code section 2924, no party needs to physically possess the promissory
note.” Sicairos v. NDEX West, LLC, 2009 WL 385855 (S.D. Cal. 2009)
(citing CCC § 2924(a)(1); see also Lomboy v. SCME Mortgage Bankers,
2009 WL 1457738 * 12-13 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (“Under California law, a
trustee need not possess a note in order to initiate foreclosure under
a deed of trust.”).

Note 18 – Statute of Frauds, Modification of Loan Documents – An
agreement to modify a note secured by a deed of trust must be in
writing signed by the party to be charged, or it is barred by the
statute of frauds.  Secrest v. Security Nat. Mortg. Loan Trust 2002-2,
167 Cal. App. 4th 544, 552-553 (2008).

Note 19 – Statute of Frauds, Forebearance Agreement – An agreement to
forebear from foreclosing on real property under a deed of trust must
be in writing and signed by the party to be charged or it is barred by
the statute of frauds.  Secrest v. Security Nat. Mortg. Loan Trust
2002-2, 167 Cal. App. 4th 544, 552-553 (2008).

Note 20 – Tender – A borrower attacking a voidable sale must do equity
by tendering the amount owing under the loan.  The tender rule applies
to all causes of action implicitly integrated with the sale.  Arnolds
Management Corp. v. Eischen, 158 Cal. App. 3d 575, 579 (1984).

Note 21 – Cause of Action for Violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 –
“The UCL does not proscribe specific activities, but broadly prohibits
any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and
unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising. The UCL governs
anti-competitive business practices as well as injuries to consumers,
and has as a major purpose the preservation of fair business
competition. By proscribing “any unlawful business practice,” section
17200 “borrows” violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful
practices that the unfair competition law makes independently
actionable.  Because section 17200 is written in the disjunctive, it
establishes three varieties of unfair competition-acts or practices
which are unlawful, or unfair, or fraudulent. In other words, a
practice is prohibited as “unfair” or “deceptive” even if not
“unlawful” and vice versa.”  Puentes v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc.,
160 Cal. App. 4th 638, 643-644 (2008) (citations and quotations
omitted).

“Unfair” Prong

[A]ny finding of unfairness to competitors under section 17200 [must]
be tethered to some legislatively declared policy or proof of some
actual or threatened impact on competition. We thus adopt the
following test: When a plaintiff who claims to have suffered injury
from a direct competitor’s “unfair” act or practice invokes section
17200, the word “unfair” in that section means conduct that threatens
an incipient violation of an antitrust law, or violates the policy or
spirit of one of those laws because its effects are comparable to or
the same as a violation of the law, or otherwise significantly
threatens or harms competition.

Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.,
20 Cal. 4th 163, 186-187 (1999).

“Fraudulent” Prong

The term “fraudulent” as used in section 17200 does not refer to the
common law tort of fraud but only requires a showing members of the
public are likely to be deceived. Unless the challenged conduct
targets a particular disadvantaged or vulnerable group, it is judged
by the effect it would have on a reasonable consumer.

Puentes, 160 Cal. App. 4th at 645 (citations and quotations
omitted).

“Unlawful” Prong

By proscribing “any unlawful” business practice, Business and
Professions Code section 17200 “borrows” violations of other laws and
treats them as unlawful practices that the UCL makes independently
actionable. An unlawful business practice under Business and
Professions Code section 17200 is an act or practice, committed
pursuant to business activity, that is at the same time forbidden by
law. Virtually any law -federal, state or local – can serve as a
predicate for an action under Business and Professions Code section
17200.

Hale v. Sharp Healthcare, 183 Cal. App. 4th 1373, 1382-1383 (2010)
(citations and quotations omitted).

“A plaintiff alleging unfair business practices under these statutes
must state with reasonable particularity the facts supporting the
statutory elements of the violation.”  Khoury v. Maly’s of California,
Inc., 14 Cal. App. 4th 612, 619 (1993) (citations and quotations
omitted).

Note 22 – Cause of Action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional
Distress –  Collection of amounts due under a loan or restructuring a
loan in a way that remains difficult for the borrower to repay is not
“outrageous” conduct.  Price v. Wells Fargo Bank, 213 Cal. App. 3d
465, 486 (1989).

Note 23 – Cause of Action for Negligent Infliction of Emotional
Distress – Emotional distress damages are not recoverable where the
emotional distress arises solely from property damage or economic
injury to the plaintiff.  Butler-Rupp v. Lourdeaux, 134 Cal. App. 4th
1220, 1229 (2005).

Note 24 – Cause of Action for Conspiracy – There is no stand-alone
claim for conspiracy.  Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia
Ltd., 7 Cal. 4th 503, 510-511 (1994).

Note 25 – Cause of Action for Declaratory Relief – A claim for
declaratory relief is not “proper” since the dispute has crystallized
into COA under other theories asserted in other causes of actions in
the complaint.  Cardellini v. Casey, 181 Cal. App. 3d 389, 397-398
(1986).

Note 26 – Cause of Action for Violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Acts – Foreclosure activities are not considered “debt
collection” activities.  Gamboa v. Trustee Corps, 2009 WL 656285, at
*4 (N.D. Cal. March 12, 2009).

Note 27 – Duties of the Foreclosure Trustee – The foreclosure
trustee’s rights, powers and duties regarding the notice of default
and sale are strictly defined and limited by the deed of trust and
governing statutes.  The duties cannot be expanded by the Courts and
no other common law duties exist.  Diediker v. Peelle Financial Corp.,
60 Cal. App. 4th 288, 295 (1997).

Note 28 – Unopposed Demurrer – The Demurrer is sustained [w/ or w/o]
leave to amend [and the RJN granted].  Service was timely and good and
no opposition was filed.
Failure to oppose the Demurrer may be construed as having abandoned
the claims.  See, Herzberg v. County of Plumas, 133 Cal. App. 4th 1,
20 (2005) (“Plaintiffs did not oppose the County’s demurrer to this
portion of their seventh cause of action and have submitted no
argument on the issue in their briefs on appeal.  Accordingly, we deem
plaintiffs to have abandoned the issue.”).

Note 29 – Responding on the Merits Waives Any Service Defect – “It is
well settled that the appearance of a party at the hearing of a motion
and his or her opposition to the motion on its merits is a waiver of
any defects or irregularities in the notice of the motion.”  Tate v.
Superior Court, 45 Cal. App. 3d 925, 930 (1975) (citations omitted).

Note 30 – Unargued Points – “Contentions are waived when a party fails
to support them with reasoned argument and citations to authority.”
Moulton Niguel Water Dist. v. Colombo, 111 Cal. App. 4th 1210, 1215
(2003).

Note 31 – Promissory Estoppel – “The doctrine of promissory estoppel
makes a promise binding under certain circumstances, without
consideration in the usual sense of something bargained for and given
in exchange. Under this doctrine a promisor is bound when he should
reasonably expect a substantial change of position, either by act or
forbearance, in reliance on his promise, if injustice can be avoided
only by its enforcement. The vital principle is that he who by his
language or conduct leads another to do what he would not otherwise
have done shall not subject such person to loss or injury by
disappointing the expectations upon which he acted. In such a case,
although no consideration or benefit accrues to the person making the
promise, he is the author or promoter of the very condition of affairs
which stands in his way; and when this plainly appears, it is most
equitable that the court should say that they shall so stand.”  Garcia
v. World Sav., FSB, 183 Cal. App. 4th 1031, 1039-1041 (2010)
(citations quotations and footnotes omitted).

Note 32 – Res Judicata Effect of Prior UD Action – Issues of title are
very rarely tried in an unlawful detainer action and moving party has
failed to meet the burden of demonstrating that the title issue was
fully and fairly adjudicated in the underlying unlawful detainer.
Vella v. Hudgins, 20 Cal. 3d 251, 257 (1977).  The burden of proving
the elements of res judicata is on the party asserting it.  Id. The
Malkoskie case is distinguishable because, there, the unlimited
jurisdiction judge was convinced that the title issue was somehow
fully resolved by the stipulated judgment entered in the unlawful
detainer court.  Malkoskie v. Option One Mortg. Corp., 188 Cal. App.
4th 968, 972 (2010).

Note 33 – Applicability of US Bank v. Ibanez – The Ibanez case, 458
Mass. 637 (January 7, 2011), does not appear to assist Plaintiff in
this action.  First, the Court notes that this case was decided by the
Massachusetts Supreme Court, such that it is persuasive authority, and
not binding authority.  Second, the procedural posture in this case is
different than that found in a case challenging a non-judicial
foreclosure in California.  In Ibanez, the lender brought suit in the
trial court to quiet title to the property after the foreclosure sale,
with the intent of having its title recognized (essentially validating
the trustee’s sale).  As the plaintiff, the lender was required to
show it had the power and authority to foreclose, which is
established, in part, by showing that it was the holder of the
promissory note.  In this action, where the homeowner is in the role
of the plaintiff challenging the non-judicial foreclosure, the lender
need not establish that it holds the note.

Note 34 – Statutes of Limitations for TILA and RESPA Claims – For TILA
claims, the statute of limitations for actions for damages runs one
year after the loan origination.  15 U.S.C. § 1640(e).  For actions
seeking rescission, the statute of limitations is three years from
loan origination.  15 U.S.C. § 1635(f).  For RESPA, actions brought
for lack of notice of change of loan servicer have a statute of
limitation of three years from the date of the occurrence, and actions
brought for payment of kickbacks for real estate settlement services,
or the conditioning of the sale on selection of certain title services
have a statute of limitations of one year from the date of the
occurrence.  12 U.S.C. § 2614.

Tell me not to make my payments could come back to bite the Bank. “Downey Savings could not take advantage of its own wrong. (Civ. Code, § 3517.)”

12 Sep

Ragland v. U.S. Bank N.A. (2012) , Cal.App.4th

[No. G045580. Fourth Dist., Div. Three. Sept. 11, 2012.]

PAM RAGLAND, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION et al., Defendants and Respondents.

(Superior Court of Orange County, No. 30-2008-00114411, Gregory H. Lewis, Judge.)

(Opinion by Fybel, J., with Aronson, Acting P.J., and Ikola, J., concurring.)

COUNSEL

Travis R. Jack for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, Karin Dougan Vogel, J. Barrett Marum and Mark G. Rackers for Defendants and Respondents. {SLIP OPN. PAGE 2}

OPINION

FYBEL, J.-

INTRODUCTION

After Pam Ragland lost her home through foreclosure, she sued defendants U.S. Bank National Association (U.S. Bank), the successor in interest to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as the receiver for Downey Savings and Loan Association (Downey Savings); DSL Service Company (DSL), the trustee under the deed of trust; and DSL’s agent, FCI Lender Services, Inc. (FCI). (We refer to U.S. Bank, DSL, and FCI collectively as Defendants.) She asserted causes of action for negligent misrepresentation, fraud, breach of oral contract, violation of Civil Code section 2924g, subdivision (d) (section 2924g(d)), intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and rescission of the foreclosure sale. Ragland appeals from the judgment entered after the trial court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and summary adjudication.

Applying basic contract and tort law, we reverse the judgment in favor of U.S. Bank on the causes of action for negligent misrepresentation, fraud, violation of section 2924g(d), and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Ragland produced evidence creating triable issues of fact as to whether Downey Savings induced her to miss a loan payment, thereby wrongfully placing her loan in foreclosure, and whether she suffered damages as a result. We affirm summary adjudication of the causes of action for breach of oral contract, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and rescission, and affirm the judgment in favor of DSL and FCI because Ragland is no longer pursuing claims against them.

The FDIC took control of Downey Savings in November 2008 and later assigned its assets, including Ragland’s loan, to U.S. Bank. For the sake of clarity, we continue to use the name “Downey Savings” up through December 17, 2008, the date of the foreclosure sale. {Slip Opn. Page 3}

FACTS

I. Ragland Refinances Her Loan. Her Signature Is Forged on Some Loan Documents.

In June 2002, Ragland refinanced her home mortgage through Downey Savings. She obtained the refinance loan through a mortgage broker. The loan was an adjustable rate mortgage with an initial yearly interest rate of 2.95 percent, and the initial monthly payment was $1,241.03.

Ragland thought that Downey Savings had offered her a fixed rate loan and claimed her mortgage broker forged her name on certain loan documents. In July 2002, she sent a letter to the escrow company, asserting her signature had been forged on the buyer’s estimated closing statement and on the lender’s escrow instructions, and, in September 2002, she notified Downey Savings of the claimed forgery. A handwriting expert opined that Ragland’s signature had been forged on those two documents, and on a statement of assets and liabilities, an addendum to the loan application, a provider of service schedule, and an itemization of charges. By August 2002, Ragland had consulted two attorneys about the forged documents, one of whom wanted to file a class action lawsuit on her behalf, and the other of whom advised her of her right to rescind the loan. Ragland signed, and did not dispute signing, the adjustable rate mortgage note, the deed of trust, and riders to both instruments.

II. Ragland Seeks a Loan Modification. She Is Told to Miss a Loan Payment to Qualify.

By April 2008, the yearly interest rate on Ragland’s loan had increased to 7.022 percent and her monthly payment had increased to over $2,600. On April 13, Ragland spoke with a Downey Savings representative named John about modifying her {Slip Opn. Page 4} loan. John told Ragland her loan was not “behind” but he would work with her to modify it. He told Ragland not to make the April 2008 loan payment because “the worst thing that’s going to happen is you are going to have a late fee, we will get this done for you.” When Ragland asked if there was a chance the loan modification would not “go through,” John replied, “usually not, you are pre-qualified.”

John told Ragland a $1,000 fee would be charged to modify the loan, and Downey Savings would not waive that fee. She replied that Downey Savings should waive the fee because her “loan was forged and nothing was done about it.” John said he would check with his supervisor about waiving the fee.

John did not call back, and on April 16, 2008, the last day to make a timely loan payment for April, Ragland, who was nervous about a late payment, called him. John told her nothing could be done about the loan, so she asked to speak to his supervisor. The supervisor told Ragland, “[i]f you have one document in your packet that’s forged, you may not be responsible for anything in your loan, at all, you may not have to even pay your loan.” When Ragland said she had 13 to 15 forged documents, the supervisor checked her record and told her, “I can see that you reported . . . this to us. We are going to have to put it in legal.” The supervisor told Ragland that Downey Savings could not collect from her while its legal department investigated the forgery. Ragland had planned to make her April 2008 loan payment but, based on what John and the supervisor told her, manually cancelled the automatic payment from her checking account.

In late April 2008, Downey Savings sent Ragland a notice that her loan payment was delinquent. On April 29, 2008, Ragland spoke with Downey Savings representatives named Joseph and Claudia and made notes on the delinquency notice of her conversations with them. Ragland noted that Claudia or Joseph told her: “Can’t do modi[fication] while investigat[e] [¶] . . . Collection activity ‘frozen.'” Claudia told Ragland that Downey Savings was initiating an investigation into her claim of forgery {Slip Opn. Page 5} and could not accept further loan payments from her during the investigation. Ragland noted that Joseph also told her, “collection activity frozen.”

No one from Downey Savings further discussed a loan modification with Ragland or requested financial information from her. Ragland testified in her deposition, “once it went into legal, that was it. It was like the legal black hole.”

In May 2008, a withdrawal was made from Ragland’s checking account and transmitted to Downey Savings as the May 2008 loan payment. Downey Savings refused to accept the payment.

On May 5, 2008, Downey Savings sent Ragland a letter entitled “Notice of Intent to Foreclose” (some capitalization omitted). According to the letter, the amount required to reinstate the loan was $5,487.80. On May 9, Ragland called Downey Savings in response to this letter. Her notes for this conversation indicate she spoke with “Reb,” who transferred her to “Jasmine,” who transferred her to “Lilia,” who said the loan was in Downey Savings’s legal department and “they[‘]ll C/B.”

III. Downey Savings Institutes Foreclosure Proceedings; Ragland Gets the Runaround.

Nobody from Downey Savings called Ragland back. In early July 2008, Ragland received a letter from Downey Savings’s collection department, informing her that foreclosure proceedings on her home had begun. On July 15, Ragland had a telephone conversation with each of three Downey Savings representatives, identified in her notes of the conversations as Eric, Gail, and Leanna. Ragland spoke first with Eric, who told her the account was in foreclosure and transferred her to the foreclosure department. Ragland next spoke with Gail, who said she could not speak to her because the account was in foreclosure. Gail transferred Ragland to Leanna. Leanna told Ragland that the legal department failed to put a red flag in the computer to indicate the loan was being investigated and that the loan should never have been placed in {Slip Opn. Page 6} foreclosure. Leanna told Ragland that Downey Savings was “waiting for legal,” and Ragland’s attorney needed to “write the letter to legal and ask them . . . for a status update on the investigation, and that we had time, because it had just been referred in June and the sale wasn’t set for quite a while.” Ragland’s notes from the conversation include, “[f]oreclosure on hold.”

IV. Downey Savings Institutes Foreclosure Proceedings; Ragland Attempts to Make Loan Payments.

On July 18, 2008, Downey Savings instructed DSL, the trustee under the deed of trust, to initiate foreclosure proceedings on Ragland’s home. DSL assigned its agent, FCI, to take the actions necessary to foreclose the deed of trust on Ragland’s home.

Ragland attempted to make payments on her loan in September, October, and November 2008 through transfers from her checking account. Downey Savings rejected the payments.

On October 30, 2008, FCI recorded a notice of trustee’s sale, stating the foreclosure sale of Ragland’s home would be held on November 20. Ragland filed this lawsuit against Downey Savings on November 7, 2008. Several days later, Ragland’s attorney, Dean R. Kitano, spoke with general counsel for Downey Savings, Richard Swinney, about Ragland’s allegations of fraud and forgery in connection with the origination of her loan. Swinney agreed to postpone the foreclosure sale until December 9, 2008.

By letter dated November 12, 2008, Swinney informed Kitano that until Downey Savings received certain documentation from Ragland, it would not consider modifying her loan. The letter stated that any loan modification would require that she bring the loan current and described as “not credible” Ragland’s contention that a Downey Savings representative told her to skip a monthly payment. The forgery issue, {Slip Opn. Page 7} according to the letter, “has no impact on this loan” because Ragland did not claim her signatures on the disclosure statement, note, or deed of trust were forged.

Later in November 2008, the Office of Thrift Supervision closed Downey Savings, and the FDIC was appointed as its receiver. U.S. Bank acquired the assets of Downey Savings from the FDIC. Ragland’s loan was among those assets acquired by U.S. Bank.

V. Ragland’s Home Is Sold at Foreclosure Sale on the Day After the Trial Court Denied Ragland’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.

On November 12, 2008, Ragland filed an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order to enjoin the foreclosure sale scheduled for December 9. The ex parte application was heard on November 26, on which date the trial court issued an order stating: “Plaintiff shall be entitled to a temporary restraining order enjoining the foreclosure sale on December 9, 2008; upon bringing the loan current by Dec[ember] 16. Current is as of Nov[ember] 26, 2008.” A hearing on Ragland’s motion for a preliminary injunction was scheduled for December 16, 2008.

Following the ex parte hearing, Downey Savings provided Ragland a statement showing the amount necessary to reinstate her loan was $24,804.57, of which about $4,074 was for late charges, interest on arrears, property inspection and foreclosure costs. Kitano sent Downey Savings a letter, dated December 2, 2008, stating that “[c]urrently, my client is unable to pay the arrearage to make the loan current” and proposing that (1) $12,000 of the reinstatement amount be “tacked onto the back end of the loan” and (2) Downey Savings forgive the remaining amount.

In advance of the hearing on Ragland’s motion for a preliminary injunction, the trial court issued a tentative decision that stated, in part: “The court’s order of November 26, 2008, conditions the TRO [(temporary restraining order)] on plaintiff’s {Slip Opn. Page 8} bringing her payments current as of November 26, 20[08] by no later than December 16, 2008. According to defendant, t[he] amount necessary to bring the loan current is $24,804.57. Plaintiff does not dispute that she owes regular monthly mortgag[e] payments on the loan, and therefore whether or not she is likely to prevail on the merits is not at issue insofar as her responsibilit[ies] to bring the loan payments current [are] concerned. If plaintiff fails to bring her payments current by the hearing date, there is no reason to issue a preliminary injunction, since the injunction would serve no purpose but to prolong the inevitable to no good purpose. . . . [¶] If plaintiff does bring her payments current by the hearing date, then there is no basis for a foreclosure sale because the arrears would have been cured. Hence there would seem to be no need for the issuance of a preliminary injunction under such circumstances.”

Ragland did not pay the amount demanded by Downey Savings to reinstate the loan by December 16, 2008. She had sufficient funds to make the back payments due under the note, but not to pay the additional fees.

On December 16, 2008, the trial court denied Ragland’s motion for a preliminary injunction, and the foreclosure sale was conducted the next day. Ragland’s home was sold at the sale for $375,000.

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Ragland’s third amended complaint asserted causes of action against U.S. Bank for negligent misrepresentation, breach of oral contract, and fraud, and against Defendants for violations of section 2924g(d), intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and rescission of foreclosure sale.

In December 2010, Defendants moved for summary judgment and, in the alternative, for summary adjudication of each cause of action. In May 2011, the trial court granted the motion for summary judgment on the ground Ragland could not pay the full amount demanded by Downey Savings to reinstate her loan. The trial court ruled: {Slip Opn. Page 9} “A valid and viable tender of payment of the indebtedness owing is essential to an action to cancel a voidable sale under a deed of trust . . . . [Citation.] [¶] This rule . . . is based upon the equitable maxim that a court of equity will not order a useless act performed . . . if plaintiffs could not have redeemed the property had the sale procedures been proper, any irregularities in the sale did not result in damages to the plaintiffs. [¶] [Citation.] [¶] The defendants have shown that all of plaintiff’s damages under each cause of action were suffered as a result of the foreclosure sale of her property. . . . Plaintiff alleges that the foreclosure sale occurred six days too early in violation of Civil Code §2924g. Even if this were true, plaintiff’s damages are not recoverable because plaintiff was incapable of reinstating her loan. . . . This was made clear by plaintiff’s counsel in his letter to Downey Savings’ counsel two weeks before the foreclosure sale (December 2, 2008). Plaintiff’s counsel stated that ‘. . . my client is unable to pay the arrearage to make the loan current[.’] . . . Plaintiff’s failure to reinstate the loan by the December 16, 2008 preliminary injunction hearing confirmed as much, and plaintiff also admitted this in her deposition.”

As to the contention that Ragland could have made the past due loan payments but not the added fees, the trial court ruled: “Plaintiff claims that she indicated in her deposition that she had the money to make up the back payments, but not enough money to also make up the fees. Plaintiff’s Separate Statement, page 6, lines 16-18. The referenced deposition testimony amounts to a claim that plaintiff had only part of the money necessary to reinstate the loan.” The court also rejected the contention that Ragland was prepared to file bankruptcy to delay the foreclosure sale, stating, “[t]his is a further admission that plaintiff was incapable of reinstating her loan even if the foreclosure sale had been delayed an additional six days.”

Ragland timely filed a notice of appeal from the judgment entered in Defendants’ favor. {Slip Opn. Page 10}

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AND MOTION TO STRIKE

I. Ragland’s Request for Judicial Notice

Ragland requests that we take judicial notice of 18 discrete facts concerning the financial condition of Downey Savings from 2005 to the time of its acquisition by U.S. Bank, the nature of Downey Savings’s assets in that timeframe, the resale of Ragland’s home, and the condition of the Orange County housing market. She argues those 18 facts are relevant to show “when Downey Savings’ disastrous financial condition beg[a]n showing in late 2007, and bec[ame] clear by April, 2008, Downey’s desperate need for cash explains its unusual behavior.” She concedes, “[t]he matters concerning which judicial notice is requested were not presented to the trial court.” We deny the request for judicial notice.

Ragland requests we take judicial notice pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (h), which provides the court “may” take judicial notice of “[f]acts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.” The Court of Appeal has the same power as the trial court to take judicial notice of matters properly subject to judicial notice. (Evid. Code, § 459.) “‘Matters that cannot be brought before the appellate court through the record on appeal (initially or by augmentation) may still be considered on appeal by judicial notice.'” (Fitz v. NCR Corp. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 702, 719, fn. 4.)

As evidentiary support for the request for judicial notice, Ragland offers 12 exhibits, consisting of an audit report of Downey Savings, prepared by the Office of the Inspector General of the United States Department of the Treasury (exhibit 1), printed pages from various Web sites and blogs (exhibits 2-6 and 8-12), and a recorded grant deed (exhibit 7). Ragland’s request for judicial notice requires us (with one exception) to take judicial notice of, and accept as true, the contents of those exhibits. While we may {Slip Opn. Page 11} take judicial notice of the existence of the audit report, Web sites, and blogs, we may not accept their contents as true. (Unruh-Haxton v. Regents of University of California (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 343, 364.) “When judicial notice is taken of a document, however, the truthfulness and proper interpretation of the document are disputable. [Citation.]” (StorMedia Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 449, 457, fn. 9.)

Although the audit report is a government document, we may not judicially notice the truth of its contents. In Mangini v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1057, 1063, overruled on another ground in In re Tobacco Cases II (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1257, 1276, the plaintiff sought judicial notice of a report of the United States Surgeon General and a report to the California Department of Health Services. The California Supreme Court denied the request: “While courts may notice official acts and public records, ‘we do not take judicial notice of the truth of all matters stated therein.’ [Citations.] ‘[T]he taking of judicial notice of the official acts of a governmental entity does not in and of itself require acceptance of the truth of factual matters which might be deduced therefrom, since in many instances what is being noticed, and thereby established, is no more than the existence of such acts and not, without supporting evidence, what might factually be associated with or flow therefrom.'” (Mangini v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., supra, at pp. 1063-1064.)

Nor may we take judicial notice of the truth of the contents of the Web sites and blogs, including those of the Los Angeles Times and Orange County Register. (See Zelig v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1112, 1141, fn. 6 [“The truth of the content of the articles is not a proper matter for judicial notice”]; Unlimited Adjusting Group, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 883, 888, fn. 4 [statements of facts contained in press release not subject to judicial notice].) The contents of the Web sites and blogs are “plainly subject to interpretation and for that reason not subject to judicial notice.” (L.B. Research & Education Foundation v. UCLA Foundation (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 171, 180, fn. 2.) {Slip Opn. Page 12}

The exception is the grant deed. A recorded deed is an official act of the executive branch, of which this court may take judicial notice. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (c), 459, subd. (a); Evans v. California Trailer Court, Inc. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 540, 549; Cal-American Income Property Fund II v. County of Los Angeles (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 109, 112, fn. 2.) The grant deed purports to show that Ragland’s home was conveyed by the purchaser at the foreclosure sale to another party. While we may take judicial notice of the grant deed, we decline to do so because we conclude it is not relevant to any issue raised on appeal.

In addition, Ragland has not shown exceptional circumstances justifying judicial notice of facts that were not part of the record when the judgment was entered. (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 444, fn. 3; Duronslet v. Kamps (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 717, 737.)

II. Defendants’ Motion to Strike Portions of Ragland’s Opening Brief

Defendants move to strike (1) six passages from Ragland’s opening brief that are supported by citations to the exhibits attached to the request for judicial notice or by citations to Web sites outside the record on appeal, and (2) three passages accusing Downey Savings of trying to swindle Ragland to generate cash.

California Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C) states an appellate brief must “[s]upport any reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the volume and page number of the record where the matter appears.” We may decline to consider passages of a brief that do not comply with this rule. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 990.) As a reviewing court, we usually consider only matters that were part of the record when the judgment was entered. (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc., supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 444, fn. 3.) {Slip Opn. Page 13}

We have denied Ragland’s request for judicial notice; we therefore decline to consider those passages of the appellant’s opening brief, noted in the margin, which are supported solely by citations to exhibits attached to that request or to Web sites outside the appellate record. fn. 1 The three passages from the appellant’s opening brief accusing Downey Savings of trying to swindle Ragland also are not supported by record references, fn. 2 but we consider those three passages to be argument rather than factual assertions.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

“A trial court properly grants summary judgment where no triable issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. [Citation.] We review the trial court’s decision de novo, considering all of the evidence the parties offered in connection with the motion (except that which the court properly {Slip Opn. Page 14} excluded) and the uncontradicted inferences the evidence reasonably supports. [Citation.]” (Merrill v. Navegar, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 465, 476.) We liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve all doubts about the evidence in that party’s favor. (Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1039.)

DISCUSSION

I. Negligent Misrepresentation Cause of Action

In the first cause of action, for negligent misrepresentation, Ragland alleged: “On or about April 29, 2008, Downey [Savings] represented to Plaintiff that Downey [Savings] could modify Plaintiff’s current loan during the time that the legal department was investigating the fraud allegation on Plaintiff’s loan. However, in order to do a modification of Plaintiff’s loan, Plaintiff would have to be in arrears on her current loan. Downey[ Savings]’s representative then told Plaintiff not to pay April’s mortgage payment. Upon . . . Downey[ Savings]’s representations Plaintiff did not pay April’s mortgage payment. Thereafter, Downey [Savings] informed Plaintiff that Downey [Savings] could not accept any further mortgage payments from Plaintiff until the legal department investigated the alleged fraud on the initial mortgage.”

The elements of negligent misrepresentation are (1) a misrepresentation of a past or existing material fact, (2) made without reasonable ground for believing it to be true, (3) made with the intent to induce another’s reliance on the fact misrepresented, (4) justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation, and (5) resulting damage. (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. FSI, Financial Solutions, Inc. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1559, 1573; National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Cambridge Integrated Services Group, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 35, 50.)

In opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Ragland presented evidence that John or his supervisor represented (1) her loan was not “behind” {Slip Opn. Page 15} but he would work with her to modify the loan; (2) she should not make the April 2008 loan payment because “the worst thing that’s going to happen is you are going to have a late fee, we will get this done for you”; and (3) her loan modification request likely would be approved because she was prequalified. Ragland also presented evidence that several days later, on the last day for her to make a timely loan payment for April, John’s supervisor told her the loan would be turned over to the legal department because Ragland had reported some of the loan documents were forged. The supervisor told Ragland that Downey Savings would not attempt to collect from her until the matter had been investigated by the legal department.

Ragland presented evidence that in reliance on the representations made by John or his supervisor, she did not make her April 2008 loan payment. Defendants assert Ragland was already in default when she first spoke with John on April 13, 2008, because she failed to make her payment due April 1, 2008. The note stated Ragland’s monthly payment was due on the first day of each month, but that the monthly payment would be deemed timely if paid by the end of the 15th day after the due date. In addition, Ragland presented evidence that John told her on April 13, 2008, she was not “behind” but he would work with her to modify the loan. The payments made by Ragland for September and October 2008, which were rejected by Downey Savings, were dated the 16th of the month, and the rejected payment for November 2008 was dated the 14th. At the very least, there is a triable issue of fact whether Ragland was in default when she spoke with John on April 13.

Defendants argue Ragland did not rely on the misrepresentations because she tried to make her loan payments in May, September, October, and November 2008. Ragland made her loan payment by automatic transfer from her checking account. She manually prevented or undid the automatic payments for April, June, July, and August 2008. As Ragland argues in her reply brief, an inference could be drawn that she inadvertently did not stop the May 2008 payment. We draw all reasonable inference in {Slip Opn. Page 16} favor of the party against whom the summary judgment motion was made. (Crouse v. Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1509, 1520.)

Defendants argue Ragland’s reliance was not justified because she was told her loan was in the foreclosure department and nobody at Downey Savings ever told her she could stop making loan payments. The evidence presented by Ragland created a triable issue of fact whether her reliance was justified. On April 29, 2008, Ragland spoke with Joseph and Claudia at Downey Savings, and they told her Downey Savings was initiating an investigation of her forgery claim; during the investigation, Downey Savings would not accept loan payments; and collection activity was frozen. In May 2008, on receiving a letter stating her loan was in foreclosure, Ragland called Downey Savings. Her call was transferred several times, until a person named Lilia told her the loan was in Downey Savings’s legal department, which would call her back. Nobody from the legal department called Ragland back. In July 2008, Ragland received a letter from Downey Savings, telling her foreclosure proceedings had begun. After receiving the letter, she called Downey Savings and spoke with three different representatives. The third, Leanna, told Ragland the legal department had failed to place a red flag on the loan and it should never have been placed in foreclosure. Ragland’s notes from the conversation include the statement, “[f]oreclosure on hold.”

The trial court granted summary judgment against Ragland on the ground she suffered no damages because, on the date of the foreclosure sale, she could not reinstate the loan by tendering $24,804.57–the amount Downey Savings claimed was due and owing. The evidence created at the very least a triable issue of fact on damages. Ragland testified in her deposition that as of the date of the foreclosure sale, “I could have covered the back payments but not the fees, not all the fees.” Those fees were tacked on because Ragland’s failure to make the April 2008 loan payment placed the loan in foreclosure. However, Ragland presented evidence that she did not make the April 2008 payment because she relied on misrepresentations made by Downey Savings. In {Slip Opn. Page 17} July 2008, Downey Savings told Ragland her loan should not have been placed in foreclosure and the foreclosure was “on hold.” If Downey Savings wrongfully placed Ragland’s loan in foreclosure, as Ragland alleges, then it had no right to demand payment of additional fees and interest to reinstate the loan. Downey Savings could not take advantage of its own wrong. (Civ. Code, § 3517.)

Defendants point to the December 2, 2008 letter from Ragland’s attorney as undermining her claim she could make the past due monthly loan payments. In that letter, the attorney stated that Ragland could not pay the full amount required to bring the loan current and proposed $12,000 of the reinstatement amount be “tacked onto the back end of the loan.” Defendants ask, if Ragland could have made all of the past due monthly loan payments, why did she not offer to pay them? The question is rhetorical: If she had offered to pay the past due monthly loan payments, Downey Savings certainly would have rejected the offer, just as now Defendants vigorously argue a tender must be unconditional and offer payment of additional fees.

Defendants argue Ragland’s declaration is inconsistent with her deposition testimony because, in her deposition, Ragland could not identify precisely the people from whom she asked to borrow money to make the past due monthly loan payments. Her declaration is consistent with her deposition testimony. Ragland testified, under oath, in her deposition that as of the date of the foreclosure sale, she “could have covered the back payments but not the fees.” The evidence established she was not behind on her monthly payments when she spoke with John at Downey Savings on April 13, 2008, and Downey Savings rejected her payments for May, September, October, and November 2008. A reasonable inference from this evidence, which we liberally construe in Ragland’s favor, is that Ragland would have been able to make the past due monthly payments by the time of the foreclosure sale. (Miller v. Department of Corrections (2005) 36 Cal.4th 446, 470 [“We stress that, because this is an appeal from a grant of {Slip Opn. Page 18} summary judgment in favor of defendants, a reviewing court must examine the evidence de novo and should draw reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party”].)

II. Breach of Oral Contract Cause of Action

In her second cause of action, for breach of oral contract, Ragland alleged Downey Savings breached its promise to investigate her allegations of forgery. On appeal, she does not attempt to support a claim of breach of oral contract and argues instead, “[t]he second cause of action for breach of oral promise to investigate should have been labeled as a cause of action for promissory estoppel.” While conceding the second cause of action does not include the required allegation of detrimental reliance (Kajima/Ray Wilson v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2000) 23 Cal.4th 305, 310), she argues a detrimental reliance allegation may be extrapolated from the fraud cause of action.

The second cause of action did not incorporate by reference the allegations of the fraud cause of action. Ragland argues we must ignore labels, but however labeled, the second cause of action does not allege promissory estoppel. On remand, Ragland may seek leave to amend her complaint to allege a promissory estoppel cause of action.

III. Fraud Cause of Action

In the third cause of action, for fraud, Ragland alleged Downey Savings “falsely and fraudulently” made the representations alleged in the negligent misrepresentation cause of action.

The elements of fraud are (1) the defendant made a false representation as to a past or existing material fact; (2) the defendant knew the representation was false at the time it was made; (3) in making the representation, the defendant intended to deceive {Slip Opn. Page 19} the plaintiff; (4) the plaintiff justifiably and reasonably relied on the representation; and (5) the plaintiff suffered resulting damages. (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 638.)

Defendants argue U.S. Bank was entitled to summary adjudication of the fraud cause of action because no evidence was presented of “a misrepresentation, reliance or damages.” As explained in part I. of the Discussion on negligent misrepresentation, Ragland presented evidence in opposition to the motion for summary judgment that was sufficient to create triable issues as to misrepresentation, reliance, and damages.

Defendants do not argue lack of evidence of elements two (knowledge of falsity) and three (intent to deceive) and did not seek summary adjudication of the fraud cause of action on the ground of lack of evidence of either of those elements. fn. 3 Since Ragland submitted evidence creating triable issues of misrepresentation, reliance, and damages, summary adjudication of the fraud cause of action is reversed.

IV. Violation of Section 2924g(d) Cause of Action

In the fourth cause of action, Ragland alleged Defendants violated section 2924g(d) by selling her home one day after the expiration of the temporary restraining order.

Section 2924g(d) reads, in relevant part: “The notice of each postponement and the reason therefor shall be given by public declaration by the trustee at the time and {Slip Opn. Page 20} place last appointed for sale. A public declaration of postponement shall also set forth the new date, time, and place of sale and the place of sale shall be the same place as originally fixed by the trustee for the sale. No other notice of postponement need be given. However, the sale shall be conducted no sooner than on the seventh day after the earlier of (1) dismissal of the action or (2) expiration or termination of the injunction, restraining order, or stay that required postponement of the sale, whether by entry of an order by a court of competent jurisdiction, operation of law, or otherwise, unless the injunction, restraining order, or subsequent order expressly directs the conduct of the sale within that seven-day period.” (Italics added.)

On November 26, 2008, the trial court issued an order stating: “Plaintiff shall be entitled to a temporary restraining order enjoining the foreclosure sale on December 9, 2008; upon bringing the loan current by Dec[ember] 16. Current is as of Nov[ember] 26, 2008.” The foreclosure sale was conducted on December 17, 2008.

A. Section 2924g(d) Creates a Private Right of Action and Is Not Preempted by Federal Law.

In their summary judgment motion, Defendants argued section 2924g(d) does not create a private right of action and is preempted by federal law. Although Defendants do not make those arguments on appeal, we address, due to their significance, the issues whether section 2924g(d) creates a private right of action and whether it is preempted by federal law. Following the reasoning of Mabry v. Superior Court (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 208 (Mabry), we conclude section 2924g(d) creates a private right of action and is not preempted.

In Mabry, supra, 185 Cal.App.4th at page 214, our colleagues concluded Civil Code section 2923.5 may be enforced by private right of action. Section 2923.5 requires a lender to contact the borrower in person or by telephone before a notice of default may be filed to “‘assess'” the borrower’s financial situation and “‘explore'” options to prevent foreclosure. (Mabry, supra, at pp. 213-214.) Section 2923.5, though {Slip Opn. Page 21} not expressly creating a private right of action, impliedly created one because there was no administrative mechanism to enforce the statute, a private remedy furthered the purpose of the statute and was necessary for it to be effective, and California courts do not favor constructions of statutes that render them advisory only. (Mabry, supra, at p. 218.)

There is no administrative mechanism to enforce section 2924g(d), and a private remedy is necessary to make it effective. While the Attorney General might be responsible for collective enforcement of section 2924g(d), “the Attorney General’s office can hardly be expected to take up the cause of every individual borrower whose diverse circumstances show noncompliance with section [2924g(d)].” (Mabry, supra, 185 Cal.App.4th at p. 224.)

The Mabry court also concluded Civil Code section 2923.5 was not preempted by federal law because the statute was part of the foreclosure process, traditionally a matter of state law. Regulations promulgated by the Office of Thrift Supervision pursuant to the Home Owners’ Loan Act of 1933 (12 U.S.C. § 1461 et seq.) preempted state law but dealt with loan servicing only. (Mabry, supra, 185 Cal.App.4th at pp. 228-231.) “Given the traditional state control over mortgage foreclosure laws, it is logical to conclude that if the Office of Thrift Supervision wanted to include foreclosure as within the preempted category of loan servicing, it would have been explicit.” (Id. at p. 231.) Section 2924g(d), as section 2923.5, is part of the process of foreclosure and therefore is not subject to federal preemption.

B. The Foreclosure Sale Violated Section 2924g(d).

Defendants argue the foreclosure sale did not violate section 2924g(d) on the ground the trial court’s November 26, 2008 order was not a temporary restraining order because it conditioned injunctive relief on Ragland bringing her loan current by December 16, 2008. That condition was not met, and, therefore, Defendants argue, a temporary restraining order was never issued. {Slip Opn. Page 22}

We disagree with Defendants’ interpretation of the November 26 order. The foreclosure sale had been scheduled for December 9, 2008. The November 26 order was for all intents and purposes a temporary restraining order subject to section 2924g(d) because the effect of that order was to require postponement of the sale at least to December 16, 2008. The requirement that Ragland bring the loan current by that date was not a condition precedent to a temporary restraining order, which in effect had been issued, but a condition subsequent, the failure of which to satisfy would terminate injunctive relief. fn. 4

Defendants argue they were entitled nonetheless to summary adjudication of the fourth cause of action because Ragland could not have brought her loan current within seven days of December 16, 2008. Although Ragland submitted evidence that she could pay back amounts due, she did not present evidence she could bring the loan current, including payment of additional fees, as required by the trial court’s November 26 order.

The purpose of the seven-day waiting period under section 2924g(d) was not, however, to permit reinstatement of the loan, “but to ‘provide sufficient time for a trustor to find out when a foreclosure sale is going to occur following the expiration of a court order which required the sale’s postponement’ and ‘provide the trustor with the opportunity to attend the sale and to ensure that his or her interests are protected.’ [Citation].” (Hicks v. E.T. Legg & Associates (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 496, 505.) “The bill [amending section 2924g(d) to add the waiting period] was sponsored by the Western Center on Law and Poverty in response to an incident in which a foreclosure sale was held one day after a TRO was dissolved. The property was sold substantially below fair {Slip Opn. Page 23} market value. The trustor, who had obtained a purchaser for the property, did not learn of the new sale date and was unable to protect his interests at the sale.” (Ibid.)

Thus, in obtaining relief under section 2924g(d), the issue is not whether Ragland could have reinstated her loan within the seven-day waiting period but whether the failure of Downey Savings to comply with the statute impaired her ability to protect her interests at a foreclosure sale. Defendants did not raise that issue as ground for summary adjudication of the fourth cause of action.

V. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Cause of Action

In the fifth cause of action, Ragland alleged that in December 2008, Defendants intentionally caused her severe emotional distress by selling her home in a foreclosure sale.

Defendants argue Ragland cannot recover emotional distress damages–either intentionally or negligently inflicted–because she suffered property damage at most as result of their actions. (See Erlich v. Menezes (1999) 21 Cal.4th 543, 554 [“‘No California case has allowed recovery for emotional distress arising solely out of property damage'”].) Erlich v. Menezes and other cases disallowing emotional distress damages in cases of property damage involved negligent infliction of emotional distress. (Ibid. [negligent construction of home does not support emotional distress damages]; Butler-Rupp v. Lourdeaux (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1220, 1228-1229 [negligent breach of lease of storage space]; Camenisch v. Superior Court (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1689, 1693 [negligent infliction of emotional distress based on legal malpractice]; Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1040 [“mere negligence will not support a recovery for mental suffering where the defendant’s tortious conduct has resulted in only economic injury to the plaintiff”].) The rule does not apply to intentional infliction of emotional distress: “[R]ecovery for emotional distress caused by injury to property is permitted {Slip Opn. Page 24} only where there is a preexisting relationship between the parties or an intentional tort.” (Lubner v. City of Los Angeles (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 525, 532; see also Cooper v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 1008, 1012 [no recovery for emotional distress arising solely out of property damage “absent a threshold showing of some preexisting relationship or intentional tort”].)

The elements of a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress are (1) the defendant engages in extreme and outrageous conduct with the intent to cause, or with reckless disregard for the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff suffers extreme or severe emotional distress; and (3) the defendant’s extreme and outrageous conduct was the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s extreme or severe emotional distress. (Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 965, 1001.) “Outrageous conduct” is conduct that is intentional or reckless and so extreme as to exceed all bounds of decency in a civilized community. (Ibid.) The defendant’s conduct must be directed to the plaintiff, but malicious or evil purpose is not essential to liability. (Ibid.) Whether conduct is outrageous is usually a question of fact. (Spinks v. Equity Residential Briarwood Apartments (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1045 (Spinks).)

Ragland argues Downey Savings engaged in outrageous conduct by inducing her to skip the April loan payment, refusing later to accept loan payments, and selling her home at foreclosure. She likens this case to Spinks, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th 1004, in which the appellate court reversed summary adjudication in the defendants’ favor of a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendants in Spinks were landlords of an apartment complex in which the plaintiff resided under a lease entered into by her employer. (Id. at p. 1015.) When the plaintiff’s employment was terminated following an industrial injury, the defendants, at the employer’s direction, changed the locks on the plaintiff’s apartment, causing her to leave her residence. (Ibid.) The Court of Appeal rejected the contention the defendants’ conduct was not outrageous {Slip Opn. Page 25} as a matter of law: “First, as a general principle, changing the locks on someone’s dwelling without consent to force that person to leave is prohibited by statute. [Citation.] Though defendants’ agents were polite and sympathetic towards plaintiff, they nevertheless caused her to leave her home without benefit of judicial process. . . . ‘While in the present case no threats or abusive language were employed, and no violence existed, that is not essential to the cause of action. An eviction may, nevertheless, be unlawful even though not accompanied with threats, violence or abusive language. Here the eviction was deliberate and intentional. The conduct of defendants was outrageous.'” (Id. at pp. 1045-1046.) In addition, the defendants’ onsite property manager had expressed concern over the legality of changing the locks, and the plaintiff was particularly vulnerable at the time because she was recovering from surgery. (Id. at p. 1046.)

Defendants argue Spinks is inapposite because changing locks on an apartment to force the tenant to leave is unlawful, while, in contrast, Downey Savings proceeded with a lawful foreclosure after Ragland defaulted and had a legal right to protect its economic interests. (See Sierra-Bay Fed. Land Bank Assn. v. Superior Court (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 318, 334 [“It is simply not tortious for a commercial lender to lend money, take collateral, or to foreclose on collateral when a debt is not paid”]; Quinteros v. Aurora Loan Services (E.D.Cal. 2010) 740 F.Supp.2d 1163, 1172 [“The act of foreclosing on a home (absent other circumstances) is not the kind of extreme conduct that supports an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim”].)

This argument assumes Downey Savings had the right to foreclose, an issue at the heart of the case. Ragland created triable issues of fact on her causes of action for negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and violation of section 2924g(d). Defendants do not argue Downey Savings would have had the right to foreclose if any of those causes of action were meritorious. Ragland’s treatment by Downey Savings, if proven, was at least {Slip Opn. Page 26} as bad as the conduct of the defendants in Spinks and was so extreme as to exceed all bounds of decency in our society.

VI. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Cause of Action

In the sixth cause of action, Ragland alleged that in December 2008, Defendants negligently caused her severe emotional distress by selling her home in a foreclosure sale. As explained above, Ragland cannot recover under her cause of action for negligent infliction because Defendants’ conduct resulted only in injury to property. In addition, she cannot recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress because she cannot prove a relationship giving rise to a duty of care.

There is no independent tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress; rather, “[t]he tort is negligence, a cause of action in which a duty to the plaintiff is an essential element.” (Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 984.) “That duty may be imposed by law, be assumed by the defendant, or exist by virtue of a special relationship.” (Id. at p. 985.)

Ragland asserted a “direct victim” claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress rather than a “bystander” claim. “‘Direct victim’ cases are cases in which the plaintiff’s claim of emotional distress is not based upon witnessing an injury to someone else, but rather is based upon the violation of a duty owed directly to the plaintiff. ‘[T]he label “direct victim” arose to distinguish cases in which damages for serious emotional distress are sought as a result of a breach of duty owed the plaintiff that is “assumed by the defendant or imposed on the defendant as a matter of law, or that arises out of a relationship between the two.” [Citation.] In these cases, the limits [on bystander cases . . . ] have no direct application. [Citations.] Rather, well-settled principles of negligence are invoked to determine whether all elements of a cause of {Slip Opn. Page 27} action, including duty, are present in a given case.'” (Wooden v. Raveling (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1035, 1038.)

Ragland argues a relationship between her and Defendants, sufficient to create a duty of care, arose by virtue of (1) the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the loan documents and (2) financial advice rendered by John or Joseph during the telephone calls in April 2008.

The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a contractual relationship and does not give rise to an independent duty of care. Rather, “‘[t]he implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is limited to assuring compliance with the express terms of the contract, and cannot be extended to create obligations not contemplated by the contract.'” (Pasadena Live v. City of Pasadena (2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 1089, 1094.) Outside of the insured-insurer relationship and others with similar qualities, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing does not give rise to tort damages. (Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 654, 692-693; see also Cates Construction, Inc. v. Talbot Partners (1999) 21 Cal.4th 28, 61 [no tort recovery for breach of implied covenant arising out of performance bond]; Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 503, 516 [“In the absence of an independent tort, punitive damages may not be awarded for breach of contract” even when the breach was willful, fraudulent, or malicious]; Mitsui Manufacturers Bank v. Superior Court (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 726, 730-732 [commercial borrower may not recover tort damages for lender’s breach of implied covenant in loan documents].)

No fiduciary duty exists between a borrower and lender in an arm’s length transaction. (Oaks Management Corporation v. Superior Court (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 453, 466; Union Bank v. Superior Court (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 573, 579; Price v. Wells Fargo Bank (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 465, 476.) “[A]s a general rule, a financial institution owes no duty of care to a borrower when the institution’s involvement in the loan transaction does not exceed the scope of its conventional role as a mere lender of {Slip Opn. Page 28} money.” (Nymark v. Heart Fed. Savings & Loan Assn. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1089, 1096.)

Relying on Barrett v. Bank of America (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 1362 (Barrett), Ragland argues Downey Savings exceeded the scope of its role as a lender of money because John and Joseph gave her what amounted to investment advice by telling her not to make her April 2008 loan payment. In Barrett, the plaintiffs executed personal guarantees to the defendant bank of two loans made to a corporation of which the plaintiffs were the principal shareholders. (Id. at p. 1365.) Soon after the loans funded, the plaintiffs were informed the corporation was in technical default because the corporation’s liability to asset ratios no longer met the bank’s requirements. (Ibid.) The bank’s loan officer assigned to the matter suggested three different ways to improve the corporation’s financial situation. As to the third suggestion, merger or acquisition, the loan officer told the plaintiffs a merging company would be responsible for the loans and the plaintiffs would be released from the guarantees. (Ibid.)

The plaintiffs followed the third suggestion, and their corporation merged with another one. The merging corporation soon could not make the payments on the loans. (Barrett, supra, 183 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1365-1366.) The assignee of the loans enforced them against the plaintiffs and instituted foreclosure proceedings against their home. (Id. at p. 1366.) The plaintiffs sued the bank for various causes of action, including constructive fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Ibid.) The jury returned a verdict in favor of the bank. (Id. at pp. 1366-1367.)

The issue on appeal was whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on constructive fraud. (Barrett, supra, 183 Cal.App.3d at p. 1368.) The Court of Appeal, reversing, concluded substantial evidence supported a constructive fraud theory of recovery. (Id. at p. 1369.) Constructive fraud usually arises from a breach of duty in which a fiduciary relationship exists. (Ibid.) The court reasoned the bank acted as the plaintiffs’ fiduciary because one plaintiff perceived his relationship with the loan officer {Slip Opn. Page 29} as “very close,” relied on the loan officer’s financial advice, shared confidential financial information with the loan officer, and relied on the loan officer’s advice about mergers. (Ibid.) In addition, a consultant for the merging corporation testified the loan officer assured him the plaintiffs would not be released from their guarantees. (Ibid.)

The evidence presented in opposition to the motion for summary judgment did not create a triable issue of Ragland’s relationship with Downey Savings. In contrast with the extensive financial and legal advice given by the loan officer in Barrett, John or his supervisor at Downey Savings told Ragland not to make her April 2008 loan payment in order to be considered for a loan modification. This advice was directly related to the issue of loan modification and therefore fell within the scope of Downey Savings’s conventional role as a lender of money.

The undisputed facts established there was no relationship between Ragland and Downey Savings giving rise to a duty the breach of which would permit Ragland to recover emotional distress damages based on negligence. The trial court did not err by granting summary adjudication of the cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress.

VII. Rescission Cause of Action

Ragland concedes her seventh cause of action, for rescission, is no longer viable (“a dead letter”) because her home was resold after the foreclosure sale to a bona fide purchaser for value. For that reason too, she states she is no longer asserting claims against DSL and FCI.

VIII. Temporary Restraining Order

Ragland argues the trial court’s November 26, 2008 order violated her due process rights because it, in effect, required her to pay nearly $25,000 to bring her loan {Slip Opn. Page 30} current or face foreclosure of her home. There are two fundamental problems with Ragland’s challenge to the November 26 order. First, an order granting or dissolving an injunction, or refusing to grant or dissolve an injunction, is directly appealable. (Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd. (a)(6).) Ragland did not file a notice of appeal from the November 26 order or from the later order denying her motion for a preliminary injunction. Second, even if Ragland properly had appealed, the sale of her home at foreclosure would have rendered the appeal moot. An appeal from an order denying a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction will not be entertained after the act sought to be enjoined has been performed. (Finnie v. Town of Tiburon (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1, 10.) “An appeal should be dismissed as moot when the occurrence of events renders it impossible for the appellate court to grant appellant any effective relief. [Citation.]” (Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion v. City of Rancho Cucamonga (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 473, 479.)

Ragland concedes her attempt to halt the foreclosure sale, like her rescission cause of action, is a “dead letter” and she is not seeking to set aside the November 26 order or the order denying a preliminary injunction. She argues, “the denial of due process at the application for temporary restraining order was a substantial factor in [the] trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of U.S. Bank.” We fail to see the connection. In any event, we are reversing the judgment as to U.S. Bank, and affirming summary adjudication only of the causes of action for breach of oral contract, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and rescission.

DISPOSITION

The judgment in favor of DSL and FCI, and summary adjudication of the causes of action for breach of oral contract, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and rescission are affirmed. Ragland may seek leave to amend in the trial court, as explained {Slip Opn. Page 31} in this opinion. In all other respects, the judgment is reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. Ragland shall recover costs incurred on appeal.

Aronson, Acting P.J., and Ikola, J., concurred.

­FN 1. 1. From page 4, the third full paragraph beginning “In October, 2007, Downeys’ publicly traded common stock,” through page 6, the citation following the first full paragraph and ending http://www.ocregister.com/articles/bank-16076-fremont-fdic.html).

2. On page 7, footnote 3 that continues from page 6, the second sentence beginning “Between April 2008” and ending “[$543,000 + 14% = $619,020].”

3. From page 7, in the third paragraph, the second sentence beginning “By that time, Downey’s” to page 8, the first line ending “(http:/www.bankaholic.com/ downey-savings/).”

4. On page 8, the second full paragraph beginning “In late July, 2008.”

5. From page 9, the third full paragraph beginning “On November 21, 2008” through the first full paragraph on page 10.

6. From page 31, the first full paragraph beginning “Going through a foreclosure can be so stressful” through page 32, the first full paragraph ending “(http://abcnews.go.com/Health/DepressionNews/story?id=5444573&page=1).”

­FN 2. The three passages are:

1. On page 16, the first full paragraph beginning “In the present case.”

2. On page 16, footnote 4.

3. On page 30, in the first full paragraph, the fourth sentence beginning “Downey Savings took Ms. Ragland’s home.”

­FN 3. In its notice of motion and separate statement of undisputed material facts, U.S. Bank moved for summary adjudication of two issues (issues 9 and 10) related to the fraud cause of action: “9. U.S. Bank is entitled to summary adjudication against Plaintiff on the third cause of action for Fraud because U.S. Bank did not make an actionable misrepresentation. [¶] 10. U.S. Bank is entitled to summary adjudication against Plaintiff on the third cause of action for Fraud because all of Plaintiff’s alleged damages arise from the foreclosure of her property and Plaintiff was incapable of reinstating the loan at the time of the foreclosure.”

­FN 4. The requirement that Ragland bring her loan current might also be viewed as a condition precedent to a preliminary injunction. But, as the trial court noted: “If plaintiff does bring her payments current by the hearing date, then there is no basis for a foreclosure sale because the arrears would have been cured. Hence there would seem to be no need for the issuance of a preliminary injunction under such circumstances.”

What is a Wrongful Foreclosure Action?

29 Aug

The pretender lender does not have the loan and did not invest any of the servicers money. Yet these frauds are occurring every day. They did not loan you the money yet they are the ones foreclosing, taking the bail out money, the mortgage insurance, and then throwing it back on the investor for the loss. We could stop them if a few plaintiffs where awarded multi million dollar verdicts for wrongful foreclosure.
A wrongful foreclosure action typically occurs when the lender starts a non judicial foreclosure action when it simply has no legal cause. Wrongful foreclosure actions are also brought when the service providers accept partial payments after initiation of the wrongful foreclosure process, and then continue on with the foreclosure process. These predatory lending strategies, as well as other forms of misleading homeowners, are illegal.

The borrower is the one that files a wrongful disclosure action with the court against the service provider, the holder of the note and if it is a non-judicial foreclosure, against the trustee complaining that there was an illegal, fraudulent or willfully oppressive sale of property under a power of sale contained in a mortgage or deed or court judicial proceeding. The borrower can also allege emotional distress and ask for punitive damages in a wrongful foreclosure action.
Causes of Action

Wrongful foreclosure actions may allege that the amount stated in the notice of default as due and owing is incorrect because of the following reasons:

Incorrect interest rate adjustment
Incorrect tax impound accounts
Misapplied payments
forbearance agreement which was not adhered to by the servicer
Unnecessary forced place insurance,
Improper accounting for a confirmed chapter 11 or chapter 13 bankruptcy plan.
Breach of contract
Intentional infliction of emotional distress
Negligent infliction of emotional distress
Unfair Business Practices
Quiet title
Wrongful foreclosure

Injunction

Any time prior to the foreclosure sale, a borrower can apply for an injunction with the intent of stopping the foreclosure sale until issues in the lawsuit are resolved. The wrongful foreclosure lawsuit can take anywhere from ten to twenty-four months. Generally, an injunction will only be issued by the court if the court determines that: (1) the borrower is entitled to the injunction; and (2) that if the injunction is not granted, the borrower will be subject to irreparable harm.
Damages Available to Borrower

Damages available to a borrower in a wrongful foreclosure action include: compensation for the detriment caused, which are measured by the value of the property, emotional distress and punitive damages if there is evidence that the servicer or trustee committed fraud, oppression or malice in its wrongful conduct. If the borrower’s allegations are true and correct and the borrower wins the lawsuit, the servicer will have to undue or cancel the foreclosure sale, and pay the borrower’s legal bills.
Why Do Wrongful Foreclosures Occur?

Wrongful foreclosure cases occur usually because of a miscommunication between the lender and the borrower. This could be as a result of an incorrectly applied payment, an error in interest charges and completely inaccurate information communicated between the lender and borrower. Some borrowers make the situation worse by ignoring their monthly statements and not promptly responding in writing to the lender’s communications. Many borrowers just assume that the lender will correct any inaccuracies or errors. Any one of these actions can quickly turn into a foreclosure action. Once an action is instituted, then the borrower will have to prove that it is wrongful or unwarranted. This is done by the borrower filing a wrongful foreclosure action. Costs are expensive and the action can take time to litigate.
Impact

The wrongful foreclosure will appear on the borrower’s credit report as a foreclosure, thereby ruining the borrower’s credit rating. Inaccurate delinquencies may also accompany the foreclosure on the credit report. After the foreclosure is found to be wrongful, the borrower must then petition to get the delinquencies and foreclosure off the credit report. This can take a long time and is emotionally distressing.

Wrongful foreclosure may also lead to the borrower losing their home and other assets if the borrower does not act quickly. This can have a devastating affect on a family that has been displaced out of their home. However, once the borrower’s wrongful foreclosure action is successful in court, the borrower may be entitled to compensation for their attorney fees, court costs, pain, suffering and emotional distress caused by the action. Fortunately, these wrongful foreclosure incidences are rare. The majority of foreclosures occur as a result of the borrower defaulting on their mortgage payments.

Win the house back at the eviction on summary judgement

26 Aug

Here goes

Timothy L. McCandless, Esq., SBN 147715
LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY L. MCCANDLESS
820 Main Street, Suite #1
P.O. Box 149
Martinez, California 94553

Telephone: (925) 957-9797
Facsimile: (925) 957-9799
Email: legal@prodefenders.com

Attorney for Defendant(s):

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

SOUTHERN BRANCH – HALL OF JUSTICE & RECORDS

FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE
CORPORATION, ITS ASSIGNEES
AND/OR SUCCESSORS,

Plaintiff(s),

VS.

; and DOES 1 -10, Inclusive,

Defendant(s)

CASE NO:

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY
DEFENDANT

[Filed concurrently with: Notice of Motion and
Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendant;
Declaration of Alexander B. Paragas in Support
of Motion for Summary Judgment by
Defendant; Defendant’s Separate Statement of
Undisputed Facts and Supporting Evidence on
Motion for Summary Judgment; [Proposed]
Order]

Hearing’s:
Date : September X, 2012
Time : X:XX a.m.
Dept. : Law and Motions
Reservation No.:

Defendant and Movant herein,  (“Defendant”), submits the
following Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of his Motion for Summary

Judgment against Plaintiff FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, ITS
ASSIGNEES AND/OR SUCCESSORS,(hereinafter “FHLMC”)(“Plaintiff”).

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I
FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF THIS LITIGATION

On or about January 24, 2008, Defendant executed an “Adjustable Rate Note” promising to
pay INDYMAC BANK, F.S.B. (hereinafter “INDYMAC”)1, the sum of $417,000.00, by monthly
payment commencing February 1, 2008.
The Deed of Trust (“DOT”) and the Note are between Defendant, Defendant’s wife Mrs.
Paragas and INDYMAC, Plaintiff was never a signatory to this Note, or DOT. A true and correct
copy of DOT and Adjustable Rate Rider is attached to the Declaration of Alexander B. Paragas
and incorporated herein as Exhibit “1”.
The issue is does Plaintiff has a right as a stranger to the Note to foreclose on the Note and
DOT that was not in its name and for which Plaintiff was not party to the Note or financing
transaction nor a disclosed beneficiary by virtue of a recorded assignment.
Furthermore Defendant alleges that MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS INC., a/k/a MERSCORP, INC. (hereinafter “MERS”) was not listed anywhere on his
Note executed at the same time as DOT. Furthermore Defendant is informed and believes that
directly after INDYMAC caused MERS to go on title as the “Nominee Beneficiary” this is

1 Independent National Mortgage Corporation “INDYMAC” before its failure was the largest savings and loan association in the
Los Angeles area and the seventh largest mortgage originator in the United States. The failure of INDYMAC on July 11, 2008, was the
fourth largest bank failure in United States history, and the second largest failure of a regulated thrift.

The primary causes of INDYMAC’s failure were largely associated with its business strategy of originating and securitizing Alt-
A loans on a large scale. During 2006, INDYMAC originated over $90 billion of mortgages. INDYMAC’s aggressive growth strategy, use
of Alt-A and other nontraditional loan products, insufficient underwriting, credit concentrations in residential real estate in the California
and Florida markets, and heavy reliance on costly funds borrowed from the Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) and from brokered deposits,
led to its demise when the mortgage market declined in 2007. As an Alt-A lender, INDYMAC’s business model was to offer loan products
to fit the borrower’s needs, using an extensive array of risky option-adjustable-rate-mortgages (option ARMs), subprime loans, 80/20 loans,
and other nontraditional products. Ultimately, loans were made to many borrowers who simply could not afford to make their payments.
The thrift remained profitable only as long as it was able to sell those loans in the secondary mortgage market.

When home prices declined in the latter half of 2007 and the secondary mortgage market collapsed, INDYMAC was forced to
hold $10.7 billion of loans it could not sell in the secondary market. Its reduced liquidity was further exacerbated in late June 2008 when
account holders withdrew $1.55 billion or about 7.5% of INDYMAC’s deposits. During this time INDYMAC’s financial situation was
unraveling at the seams, culminating on July 11, 2008 when INDYMAC was placed into conservatorship by the Federal Deposit Insurance
Company “FDIC” due to liquidity concerns. A bridge bank, INDYMAC FEDERAL BANK, F.S.B., Defendant in the instant action, was
established to assume control of INDYMAC’s assets and secured liabilities, and the bridge bank was put into conservatorship under the
control of the FDIC.

On March 19, 2009 the Acting Director of Office of Thrift Supervision “OTS” replaced the FDIC as conservator for INDYMAC
pursuant to Section 5(d)(2)(C) of the Home Owners’ Loan Act (HOLA), 12 U.S.C. 1464(d)(2)(C); and appointed the FDIC as the receiver
for INDYMAC pursuant to Section 5(d)(2) of HOLA, 12 U.S.C. 1464(d)(2) and Section 11(c)(5) of the FDIA, 12 U.S.C. 1821(c)(5).

As a result of the OTS Order, INDYMAC became an “inactive institution” on March 19, 2009, the very same day that the Order
was issued. In other words, INDYMAC, as a defunct corporation, was no longer in existence as of March 19, 2009.

routinely done in order to hide the true identity of the successive Beneficiaries when and as the
loan was sold.
Based upon published reports, including MERS’ web site, Defendant believes and hereon
allege, MERS does not: (1) take applications for, underwrite or negotiate mortgage loans; (2)
make or originate mortgage loans to consumers; (3) extend credit to consumers; (4) service
mortgage loans; or (5) invest in mortgage loans.
MERS is used by Plaintiff and foreclosing entities to facilitate the unlawful transfers or
mortgages, unlawful pooling of mortgages and the injection into the United States banking
industry of un-sourced (i.e. unknown) funds, including, without limitation, improper off-shore
funds. Defendant is informed and thereon believes and alleges that MERS has been listed as
beneficiary owner of more than half the mortgages in the United States. MERS is improperly
listed as beneficiary owner of Defendant’s mortgage.
Nationwide, there are courts requiring banks that claim to have transferred mortgages to MERS
to forfeit their claim to repayment of such mortgages.
MERS’ operations undermine and eviscerate long-standing principles of real property law,
such as the requirement that any person who seeks to foreclose upon a parcel of real property: (1)
be in possession of the original Note and mortgage; and (2) possess a written assignment giving it
rights to the payments due from borrower pursuant to the mortgage and Note.
The Plaintiff and its agents did not want to pay the fees associated with recording mortgages
and they did not wanted to bother with the trouble of keeping track of the originals. That is the
significance of the word ‘Electronic’ in Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. The
undermined long-established rights and sabotaged the judicial process, eliminating,
“troublesome” documentation requirements. While conversion to electronic loan documentation
may eventually be implemented, it will ultimately be brought about only through duly enacted
legislation which includes appropriate safeguards and counterchecks.
Upon information and belief:
a) MERS is not the original lender for Defendant’s loan;
b) MERS is not the creditor, beneficiary of the underlying debt or an assignee
under the terms of Defendant’s Promissory Note;
c) MERS does not hold the original Defendant’s Promissory Note, nor has it ever
held the originals of any such Promissory Note;

d) At all material times, MERS was unregistered and unlicensed to conduct
mortgage lending or any other type or real estate or loan business in the State of
California and has been and continues to knowingly and intentionally
improperly record mortgages and conduct business in California and elsewhere
on a systematic basis for the benefit of the Plaintiff and other lenders.
Defendant initiated loan modification negotiation efforts with ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B.,
(hereinafter “ONEWEST”) on or about November 2010, after experiencing unforeseen financial
hardship. Defendant believed that his loan servicer would be willing to avoid a foreclosure since
he and his wife Mrs. Paragas were willing to tender unconditionally but needed the monthly
payments restructured to reflect the downturn in their monthly gross income, and reflect the
current market conditions.
Despite Defendant’s efforts, ONEWEST has refused to work in any reasonable way to modify
the loan or avoid foreclosure sale. Furthermore ONEWEST is presently bound by a Consent
Order, WN-11-0112 , with the United States of America Department of the Office of Thrift
Supervision related to its initiation and handling of foreclosure proceedings. The Consent Order is
based in part on foreclosure affidavits that have been found to be false. ONEWEST presently
manages approximately 141 billion dollars in residential mortgage loans in which it has litigated
numerous wrongful foreclosure proceedings and initiated non-judicial foreclosure proceedings
without proper standing.
The challenged foreclosure process is based upon several Assignments of DOT.
a) First Assignment executed and effective January 3, 2011, a true and correct
copy of the Assignment of DOT is attached to the Declaration of Alexander B.
Paragas and incorporated herein as Exhibit “2”;
b) Second Assignment executed and effective May 24, 2011, a true and correct
copy of the Assignment of DOT is attached to the Declaration of Alexander B.
Paragas and incorporated herein as Exhibit “3”; and
c) Third Assignment executed and effective October 31, 2011, a true and correct
copy of the Assignment of DOT is attached to the Declaration of Alexander B.
Paragas and incorporated herein as Exhibit “4”.
There are no documents of which the Court can take judicial notice that establish that MERS

2 See: http://www.mortgagedaily.com/forms/OccConsentOrderOnewest041311.pdf

either held the Promissory Note or was given the authority by INDYMAC, the original lender, to
assign the Note.
Defendant further alleges and according the San Mateo County Recorder’s Office, that first
Assignment of DOT (See Exhibit “2”) was purportedly signed by Mr. BRIAN BURNETT as the
“Assistant Secretary” of MERS, Defendant believes and alleges that Mr. BRIAN BURNETT was
never, in any manner whatsoever, appointed as the “Assistant Secretary” by the Board of
Directors of MERS, as required by MERS’ corporate by-laws and an adopted corporate resolution
by the Board of Directors of MERS. For that reason, Mr. BRIAN BURNETT never had, nor has,
any corporate or legal authority from MERS, or the lender’s successors and assigns, to execute
the purported “Assignment.” Furthermore Mr. BRIAN BURNETT purports to be ONEWEST’s
“Assistant Vice President” according the Substitution of Trustee (“SOT”) executed and effective
January 13, 2011 a true and correct copy of the SOT is attached to the Declaration of Alexander
B. Paragas and incorporated herein as Exhibit “5”.
This is a shell game where Mr. BRIAN BURNETT purports to be “Assistant Secretary” and
“Assistant Vice President” for two different entities at the same time, in reality Mr. BRIAN
BURNETT is an employee for ONEWEST, so that he can manufacture the paperwork necessary
for ONEWEST to hijack the mortgage and then foreclose on the property. Furthermore this is
example of how MERS is being used by its members to perpetrate a fraud.
On or about October 31, 2011 another MERS’ employee Mrs. WENDY TRAXLER as
“Assistant Secretary” once again assigned same DOT to ONEWEST (See Exhibit “4”).
Defendant is left to wonder, which Assignment is valid, and how is possible that two
employees of same entity, in this case MERS’, Mr. BRIAN BURNETT and Mrs. WENDY
TRAXLER, both “Assistant Secretaries”, did not communicated as to the Defendant’s Note and
DOT before the execution of the Assignments, or it appears that MERS’ employees preparing and
signing off on foreclosures without reviewing them, as the law requires.
It has been widely reported in the media that mortgage servicers, lenders, and major banks
have suspended over a hundred thousand foreclosures because relevant documents may not have
been properly prepared by ROBO-SIGNERS. Typically, the ROBO-SIGNERS were given phony
titles such as “Vice President” and “Assistant Secretary” to make it appear that they were bank
officers. In reality, ROBO-SIGNERS were typically, teens, hair stylists, Wal-Mart workers,
students, and unemployed persons of varying backgrounds.

The ROBO-SIGNING of affidavits and Assignments of Mortgage and all other mortgage
foreclosure documents served to cover up the fact that loan servicers cannot demonstrate the facts
required to conduct a lawful foreclosure.
Here in this instant case Mr. BRIAN BURNETT assigned DOT from MERS to ONEWEST on
or about January 3, 2011 (See Exhibit “2”), on or about May 24, 2011 Mrs. MOLLIE
SCHIFFMAN an “Assistant Vice President” of ONEWEST assigned interest of Plaintiffs’ Note
and DOT to the Plaintiff (See Exhibit “3”), yet on or about October 31, 2011 Mrs. WENDY
TRAXLER once again assigns same Note and DOT from MERS to ONEWEST (See Exhibit
“4”), this fabricated Assignments of DOT is nothing more than an attempt of Plaintiff and its
agents to hijack the mortgage and then foreclose on the property, in violation of California Civil
Law.
Defendant further alleges that purported Assignments of his Note and DOT, is attempt to pave
the way for Plaintiff to be able to claim an estate or interest in the Property adverse to that of
Defendant.
Defendant alleges that, on information and belief, ONEWEST, QUALITY LOAN SERVICE
CORPORATION, (hereinafter “QUALITY”), Plaintiff and/or its agents have been fraudulently
enforcing a debt obligation, fraudulently foreclosed on Plaintiff’s Subject Property in which they
did not have pecuniary, equitable or legal interest. Thus, ONEWEST’s, QUALITY’s and/or
Plaintiff’s conduct was part of a fraudulent debt collection scheme.
Defendant further alleges that on or about January 26, 2011 QUALITY recorded Notice of
Default (“NOD”), a true and correct copy of the NOD is attached to the Declaration of Alexander
B. Paragas and incorporated herein as Exhibit “6”.
Defendant further alleges, on or about May 4, 2011, had received Notice of Trustee’s Sale
(“NTS”) a true and correct copy of the NTS is attached to the Declaration of Alexander B.
Paragas and incorporated herein as Exhibit “7”. The sale was scheduled for May 23, 2011 at 1:00
p.m., but postponed to several times, until April 23, 2012, when sale of the Subject Property was
executed.
On or about April 23, 2012 at 12:31 p.m., Defendant filed voluntary Chapter 13 bankruptcy
protection in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California, Case No.
12-31228 a true and correct copy of the filing is attached to the Declaration of Alexander B.
Paragas and incorporated herein as Exhibit “8”, along with Motion to Extend Automatic Stay

pursuant U.S.C. Section 362(c)(3)(B), Notice of Opportunity for Hearing on Motion to Extend
Automatic Stay pursuant U.S.C. Section 362(c)(3)(B), and Declaration in Support of Hearing on
Motion to Extend Automatic Stay pursuant U.S.C. Section 362(c)(3)(B) a true and correct copy of
the filing is attached to the Declaration of Alexander B. Paragas and incorporated herein as
Exhibit “9”.
Plaintiff and its agents have been notified of the filings, but failed to object and proceeded
with the sale of the Subject Property in violation of the 11 U.S.C. Section 362, and conveyed all
its right, tile and interest in and to the Plaintiffs’ property.
On or about May 4, 2012 QUALITY recorded Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale (“TDUS”) a true and
correct copy of the TDUS is attached to the Declaration of Alexander B. Paragas and incorporated
herein as Exhibit “10”, that operated to prefect the lenders/beneficiary interest in the property of
the Defendant during the pendency of the Chapter 13 proceeding.
On or about June 11, 2012 U.S. Bankruptcy Judge, Mr. THOMAS E. CARLSON granted
Motion to Extend Automatic Stay a true and correct copy of the Order is attached to the
Declaration of Alexander B. Paragas and incorporated herein as Exhibit “11”, stating that
Automatic Stay, under 11 U.S.C. Section 362(a), shall remain in force for the duration of
Defendant’s Chapter 13 proceeding, until is terminated under 11 U.S.C. Section 362(c)(1), or a
Motion for Relief from Stay is granted under 11 U.S.C. Section 362(d), no Motion for Relief has
been filed by any Creditor, including Plaintiff herein.
On or about May 16, 2012, Plaintiff filed this instant case. The Unlawful Detainer Complaint
states that the Plaintiff obtained the right to possession by a Trustee’s sale and that title was
perfected and recorded [UD Complaint, ¶11]. Title is “duly perfected” when all steps have been
taken to make it perfect, that is, to convey to purchaser that which he has purchased, valid and
good beyond all reasonable doubt, Kessler v. Bridge (1958, Cal App Dep’t Super Ct) 161 Cal
App 2d Supp 837, 327 P2d 241, 1958 Cal App LEXIS 1814.
In this instant case, the title has not been perfected in Plaintiff’s since the title to the Property
was not conveyed to Plaintiff under the power of sale contained in the DOT and/or was not
conveyed in compliance with California Civil Code Section 2924 et seq., and in violation of 11
U.S.C. Section 362.
///
///

FHLMC DOES NOT HAVE STANDING TO BRING THE INSTANT ACTION

FHLMC lacks standing to bring the instant action for possession of the subject property. (1)
FHLMC is not a proper party to this action, and as such the court is without jurisdiction to grant
possession of the subject property to Plaintiff. Further, (2) Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s predecessor
failed to perform (2) conditions precedent (i) mandated by the original DOT, Section (20) which
requires a separate Notice and opportunity to cure in addition to the procedure established by
California Civil Code Section 2924 thereby cancelling the performance of Defendant, and (ii)
they failed to record the assignment of the deed of Trust a condition precedent to conducting a
foreclosure sale, (3) Plaintiff cannot prove that the non-judicial foreclosure which occurred,
strictly complied with the tenets of California Civil Code Section 2924 in order to maintain an
action for possession pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1161.
1. Plaintiff failed to perform a condition precedent contained in the DOT prior to
bringing this action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section
1161, which mandates that the trustee attempting in writing prior to the
institution of a non-judicial foreclosure to allow defendant to cure the default;
2. Plaintiff failed to record the assignment of the Note and DOT prior to initiating
the foreclosure therefore the foreclosure was invalid under Section 2924;
3. The original promissory note executed by Defendant and his wife Mrs. Paragas
is invalid due to the ineffective method of assignment utilized by the parties,
assignment of the promissory note was not contained on the body of the page of
the Note, but rather was effectuated on a different paper, notwithstanding the
fact that there was sufficient room to draft the assignment on the face of the
note;
4. At the time of making the Note and DOT, Plaintiff’s predecessor ONEWEST
was operating its business from Inside California; however, ONEWEST was not
lawfully registered with the Secretary of State to conduct business pursuant to
California Corporations Code Section 1502 et seq. invalidating the Note and
DOT; and
5. The Trustee that conducted the non-judicial foreclosure sale was not a holder in
due course of the Original Note, because the Note was rendered non-negotiable
by (i) the manner in which the assignment was attempted, and (ii) the failure of

FHLMC to record the assignment, invalidating the Note, and resulting TDUS,
which denies Plaintiff standing to seek possession under California Code of
Civil Procedure Section 1161a.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

In this matter before the Bench, it becomes pellucidly clear that several fatal errors occurred
throughout the assignment of the Defendant’s Note and DOT, and ineffective non-judicial
foreclosure sale, which when weighed together have the effect of denying Plaintiff the necessary
standing to seek possession.
1. Plaintiff failed to perform a condition precedent contained in the DOT
prior to bringing this action pursuant to California Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1161.
This party is charged with the duty to perform and condition precedent prior to bringing the
instant action and failed to do so. Paragraph (20) of the DOT provides in pertinent part:

Neither borrow or lender may commence, join, or be joined to any judicial action
(as either an individual litigant, or the member of a class, that arises from the other
party’s actions pursuant to this security instrument or alleges that the other party has
breached any provision of, or any duty by reason of, this Security Instrument, until
such borrower or lender has notified the other party (with such notice given in
compliance with the requirements of Section 15) of such alleged breach and
afforded the other party hereto a reasonable period after giving of such notice to
take corrective action. If applicable law provides a time period which must elapse
before certain action can be taken, that time period will be deemed to be reasonable for
the purposes of this paragraph. The notice of acceleration and notice to cure given to
borrower pursuant to Section 22 and the notice of acceleration given to borrower
pursuant to Section 18 shall be deemed to satisfy the notice and opportunity to take
corrective action provisions of this Section 20. (Emphasis added.)

When there is an agreement between the Beneficiary and Trustor, such as the Condition Precedent
expressed in Paragraph 20 of the DOT a Foreclosure cannot take place before the condition is
satisfied. If the Beneficiary fails to carry out its obligation a subsequent foreclosure is invalid.
Haywood Lumber & Investment Co. V. Corbett (1934) 138 CA 644, 650, 33 P2d 41;
The DOT was drafted solely by the original beneficiary, Defendant had no part in drafting this
document, only the execution thereof. Defendant contends that the aforementioned language
contained in the DOT creates a condition precedent prior to either Plaintiff or Defendant bringing
any action, without first giving written notice to perform a covenant.

By virtue of the fact that an Unlawful Detainer involves a forfeiture of the tenant’s right to
possession, the Courts strictly construe the statutory proceedings which regulate it. Kwok v.
Bergren, (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 596, 600,181 Cal.Rptr. 795. The failure of Plaintiff to perform a
condition precedent, to wit, failure to give Defendant notice and a reasonable period to cure a
breach of the terms and conditions, cancels the performance of Defendant, until the condition
precedent is performed according to the terms of the DOT.
In the absence of proof that Plaintiff timely performed the condition precedent giving
Defendant a chance to cure his breach of the terms and conditions of the DOT, Plaintiff cannot
proceed with the present action. The Plaintiff is a stranger who is not in privity with the
tenant/owner, and he must prove that he is authorized by the statute to prosecute an Unlawful
Detainer proceeding pursuant to a properly conducted foreclosure sale. Therefore, the tenant can
raise the limited defense that the foreclosure sale is invalid because it was not processed ,in
compliance, with the statutes regarding foreclosures, and the Plaintiff has the burden of proof that
the foreclosure statutes were satisfied by performance of all of the notices and procedures
required.
2. Plaintiff failed to record the assignment of the Note and DOT prior to
initiating the foreclosure therefore the foreclosure was invalid under
Section 2924.
There is also a condition precedent to enforcing the note by an assignee, see California Civil
Code Section 2932.5 which states:

2932.5. Where a power to sell real property is given to a mortgagee, or
other encumbrancer, in an instrument intended to secure the payment of
money, the power is part of the security and vests in any person who by
assignment becomes entitled to payment of the money secured by the
instrument. The power of sale may be exercised by the assignee if the
assignment is duly acknowledged and recorded. (emphasis added).

The assignment was not Recorded

The assignment was not recorded. Since FHLMC failed to record the assignment they were not
entitled to enforce the Note or to foreclose on this Property therefore the Title was not perfected
under Section 2924 by a foreclosure sale and was not duly carried out under Section 2924 and was
wholly defective and this Plaintiff has no standing in this Unlawful Detainer action.
In addition to recording the assignment, the Beneficiary must also deliver the Original Note to

the Trustee in order for the Trustee to conduct the foreclosure sale. Haskell V. Matranga (1979)
CA 3d. 471, 479-480, 160 CR 177;
In the Case of a Mortgage with a power of Sale an assignee can only enforce the power of sale
if the assignment is recorded, since the assignee’s authority to conduct the sale must appear in the
public records, New York Life Insurance Co. V. Doane, (1936) 13 CA 2d. 233, 235-237, 56 P2d.
984, 56 ALR 224;
3. Plaintiff is not a holder in due course of the original promissory Note
executed by the borrower, because the method of assignment utilized by the
parties to indorse the assignment rendered the note non-negotiable as a
matter of law.
The assignment of the original promissory Note was invalidated by the manner in which the
assignment was attempted. It has long been settled that the assignment of a Note must be reflected
on the body of the note, as long as there is room available. If room to draft the assignment is
available, but the party making the assignment drafts the assignment on a separate piece of paper,
the Note is no longer negotiable. The public policy is to avoid one party from making multiple
assignments of the same property, at the same time, and defrauding each assignee of their
consideration for the assignment. In Privus vs. Bush, (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 1003, the court held
that a promissory Note executed as security for a DOT was rendered non-negotiable because the
endorsement by the assignor was not contained on the face of the Note, notwithstanding the fact
that there was sufficient space on the Note to effectuate the assignment.
The Privus, supra., Court held at pages 106-107, in pertinent part: California Uniform
Commercial Code Section 3302, Subdivision (1) provides, “A holder in due course is a holder
who takes the instrument (a) For value; and (b) In good faith; and (c) without notice that it is
overdue or has been dishonored or of any defense against or claim to it on the part of any person.”
In the present case, the trial Court did not question Defendant’s status as a holder in due course
because of any failure to satisfy the value, good faith, or no notice requirements. Rather, the Court
concluded that Defendant is not a holder in due course because he is not a holder at all, an
essential prerequisite to qualifying as a holder in due course. A holder is “a person who is in
possession of … an instrument …, issued or indorsed to him ….” (Section 1201(20).) The trial
Court ruled that the Williams’ signature on the paper attached to the promissory Note did not
qualify as an endorsement because there was adequate space for the endorsement on the note

itself.” (emphasis added).
Section 3202(2) states, “An endorsement must be written by or on behalf of the holder and on
the instrument or on a paper so firmly affixed thereto as to become a part thereof.” Thus, the code
does not say whether or not such a paper, called an “allonge,” may be used when there is still
room for an endorsement on the instrument itself. Nor has any reported California case dealt with
this issue under the code. The code does, however, instruct us as to where to look for the law with
which to resolve the issue. Section 1103 states that, “(u)nless displaced by the particular
provisions of this code, the principles of law and equity, including the law merchant … shall
supplement its provisions,” and that section’s Uniform Commercial Code comment Notes “the
continued applicability to commercial contracts of all supplemental bodies of law except insofar
as they are explicitly displaced by this Act.” Therefore, since the Commercial Code has not
addressed the issue, we decide the present case according to the rules on allonges of the law
merchant.” Privus vs. Bush, (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 1003,1007.
“Although the cases are not unanimous, the majority view is that the law merchant permits the
use of an allonge only when there is no longer room on the negotiable instrument itself to write an
indorsement. (See generally Annot., Indorsement of Negotiable Instrument By Writing Not On
Instrument Itself (1968) 19 A.L.R.3d 1297, 1301-1304; Annot., Indorsement of Bill or Note by
Writing Not On Instrument Itself (1928) 56 A.L.R. 921, 924-926.) Typical of the majority
position is Bishop v. Chase, (1900) 156 Mo. 158, 56 S.W. 1080. There it was held that the general
rule is that an instrument could be indorsed only by writing on the instrument itself, but that an
exception to the rule allows the use of an attached paper “when the back of the instrument is so
covered as to make it necessary.” (Id., 156 Mo. 158, 56 S.W. at p. 1083.) Thus, the Court
invalidated an attempted endorsement by allonge when “there was plenty of room upon the back
of the Note to have made the endorsement, and the only excuse for not doing so was that it was
more convenient to assign it on a separate paper.” (Id., 156 Mo. 158, 56 S.W. at p. 1084.)” Privus
vs. Bush, (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 1003, 1007.
Here, the original Note executed had sufficient space for an endorsement, however, the note
does not contain an endorsement, and Defendant has never seen a document which purports to
assign the note to a third party. As such, Plaintiff is not a holder in due course, nor was the trustee
who conducted the non-judicial foreclosure a holder in due course. Such failures on the part of the
trustee who conducted the non-judicial foreclosure clearly demonstrate that the sale was not

conducted pursuant to the strict mandates of California Civil Code Section 2924.
A non-judicial foreclosure sale under the power-of-sale in a DOT or Mortgage, on the other
hand, must be conducted in strict compliance with its provisions and applicable statutory law. A
trustee’s powers and rights are limited to those set forth in the DOT and laws applicable thereto.
(See, e.g., Fleisher v. Continental Auxiliary Co., (1963) 215 Cal.App.2d 136, 139, 30 Cal.Rptr.
137; Woodworth v. Redwood Empire Sav. & Loan Assn., (1971) 22 Cal.App.3d 347, 366, 99
Cal.Rptr. 373). No Court order authorizing or approving the sale is involved. A sale under the
power of sale in a DOT or Mortgage is a “private sale.” Walker v. Community Bank, (1974) 10
Cal.3d at p. 736, 111 Cal.Rptr. 897. (emphasis added).
The statutory procedures governing the conduct of such sales are found in Civil Code Sections
2924, 2924a-2924h, which set forth the time periods in which to comply with certain
requirements, the persons authorized to conduct the sale, the requirements of Notice of Nefault
and Election to Sell and for cure of default and reinstatement, inter alia. The sale is concluded
when the trustee accepts the last and highest bid. (Civil Code Section 2924h, Subd. (c)). Coppola
vs. Superior Court, (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 848, 868.
Here, Plaintiff’s predecessor rendered the note non-negotiable by failing to list the assignment
on the fact of the Note, notwithstanding the fact that sufficient space existed. Thus, the Note could
not be the security interest utilized for execution of the non-judicial foreclosure pursuant to
California Civil Code Section 2924. Plaintiff cannot prove that the foreclosure strictly complied
with Section 2924 as mandated. Thus, the TDUS is invalid, and does not confer upon Plaintiff a
right to seek possession of the subject premises pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure
Section 1161a. Therefore, Plaintiff does not have standing to prosecute the instant action, and the
matter must be dismissed or in the alternative Defendant is entitled to Summary Judgment.
As a General Rule a Defendant in an Unlawful Detainer cannot test the strength or validity of
Plaintiff’s Title Vella v. Hudgins, (1977) 20 C3d 251, 255, 142 CR 414, 572 P2d 28; Old
National Financial Services, Inc. v. Seibert, (1987) 194 CA 3d 460, 465, 289 CR 728; However,
a different rule applies in an Unlawful Detainer which is brought by a purchaser after a
foreclosure sale. His right to obtain possession is based on the fact that the property has been
“Duly Sold” by foreclosure proceedings California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1161a, and
therefore it is necessary that the Plaintiff “Prove” that each of the statutory procedures have been
complied with as a condition for obtaining possession of the property Vella V. Hudgins Supra;

Stephens, Pertain and Cunningham V. Hollis (1987) 196 CA3d 948, 953, 242 CR 251.
In the first instance, it appears that Plaintiff is not even the real party in interest. Plaintiff has
the burden of proving that it is the proper Plaintiff and that the TDUS resulted from a properly
conducted non-judicial foreclosure sale.
Again as stated in Privus vs. Bush, (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 1003, the court held that a
promissory note executed as security for a DOT was rendered non-negotiable because the
endorsement by the assignor was not contained on the face of the Note, notwithstanding the fact
that there was sufficient space on the Note to effectuate the assignment and thus the Plaintiff was
not a holder in due course, notwithstanding their title as a “Holders”.
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1161(3) mandates that in order to seek possession
after a sale pursuant to Civil Code Section 2924, the Plaintiff’s interest must be “duly perfected”.
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1161 provides in pertinent part:

(b) In any of the following cases, a person who holds over and continues in possession
of a manufactured home, mobile home, floating home, or real property after a three-day
written notice to quit the property has been served upon the person, or if there is a
subtenant in actual occupation of the premises, also upon such subtenant, as prescribed
in Section 1162, may be removed there from as prescribed in this chapter:

(3) Where the property has been sold in accordance with Section 2924 of the Civil
Code, under a power of sale contained in a deed of trust executed by such person, or a
person under whom such person claims, and the title under the sale has been duly
perfected.

Here, it has been shown that Plaintiff, FHLMC did not perfect its interest because the original
assignment rendered the note non-negotiable, and secondarily they failed to record the assignment
prior to commencing the foreclosure, thus, the non-judicial foreclosure could not lawfully
proceed, and the trustee did not strictly comply with the mandates of Section 2924.
A non-judicial foreclosure sale under the power-of-sale in a DOT or Mortgage, on the other
hand, must be conducted in strict compliance with its provisions and applicable statutory law. A
trustee’s powers and rights are limited to those set forth in the deed of trust and laws applicable
thereto. (See, e.g., Fleisher v. Continental Auxiliary Co., (1963) 215 Cal.App.2d 136, 139, 30
Cal.Rptr. 137. Therefore, the Court would properly exercise its discretion pursuant to California
Code of Civil Procedure Section 631.8, by granting the Motion to Dismiss for lack of standing on
the part of Plaintiff or under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 437C and Granting
Summary Judgment in Favor of Defendant.

LEGAL STANDARD

The standard for granting summary judgment

Summary Judgment shall be granted if all the papers submitted show there is no triable issue of
material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Code Civil
Procedure Section 437c(c). A Defendant is entitled to Summary Judgment if the record
establishes that none of the Plaintiff’s asserted causes of actions can prevail as a matter of law.
Molko v. Holy Spirit Ass’n, (1988) 46 CAl.3d 1092, 1107. A Defendant moving for Summary
Judgment must conclusively negate a necessary element of the Plaintiff’s case and show there is
no material issue of fact that requires a trial. Ibid.
The moving Defendant has the burden of introducing evidence that the Plaintiff’s action is
without merit on any legal theory. Hulett v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, (1992) 10 Cal.App.
4th 1051, 1064. Once the Defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the Plaintiff to show
that a triable issue of material fact exists. Code Civil Procedure Section 437c(o)(1). But if the
Defendant fails to meet that burden, the adverse party has no burden to demonstrate the claim’s
validity, and the court must deny the motion. Hulett, supra, 10 Cal.App.4th at 1064.
Instead of introducing evidence that would negate the Plaintiff’s action, a moving Defendant
may introduce the Plaintiff’s own factually devoid discovery responses to demonstrate that it has
no case. Union Bank v. Superior Court, (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 573, 589-593. The burden of
proof would then be on the Plaintiff to introduce evidence that would show a triable issue of
material fact. Id., at 593. But the Defendant does not meet its burden merely by asserting that the
Plaintiff has no evidence. Hagen v. Hickenbottom, (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 168, 186. Instead, the
Defendant must submit discovery responses that would conclusively foreclose any cause of
action. Id. at 186-187.
When no or insufficient affidavits or other evidence is submitted to demonstrate the absence of
an issue of material fact, the Court may treat the motion as in legal effect one for Judgment on the
pleadings. White v. County of Orange, (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 566, 569. In that case, the motion
performs the same function as a general demurrer. Ibid. A general demurrer will not test whether
a complaint is ambiguous or uncertain or states essential facts only inferentially or conclusionary.
Johnson v. Mead, (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 156, 160. The Defendants’ failure to challenge those
defects by way of special demurrer waives them. Hooper v. Deukmejian, (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d

987, 994.

CONCLUSION

Defendant respectfully submits his Motion to Summary Judgment and requests that the court
grant the motion as framed herein.

Respectfully submitted;

DATED: August 24, 2012 LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY L. MCCANDLESS

_____________________________________
Timothy L. McCandless, Esq.
Attorney for Defendant(s): Alexander B. Paragas

Fix Income Inequality with $10 million Loans for Everyone the 99 solution

25 Apr

“I wonder how many audience members know that Bair’s plan is more or less exactly the revenue model for all of America’s biggest banks. You go to the Fed, get a buttload of free money, lend it out at interest (perversely enough, including loans right back to the U.S. government), then pocket the profit.” Matt Taibbi

From Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi on Sheila Bair’s Sarcastic Piece

I hope everyone saw ex-Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation chief Sheila Bair’s editorial in the Washington Post, entitled, “Fix Income Inequality with $10 million Loans for Everyone!” The piece might have set a world record for public bitter sarcasm by a former top regulatory official.

In it, Bair points out that since we’ve been giving zero-interest loans to all of the big banks, why don’t we do the same thing for actual people, to solve the income inequality program? If the Fed handed out $10 million to every person, and then got each of those people to invest, say, in foreign debt, we could all be back on our feet in no time:

Under my plan, each American household could borrow $10 million from the Fed at zero interest. The more conservative among us can take that money and buy 10-year Treasury bonds. At the current 2 percent annual interest rate, we can pocket a nice $200,000 a year to live on. The more adventuresome can buy 10-year Greek debt at 21 percent, for an annual income of $2.1 million. Or if Greece is a little too risky for you, go with Portugal, at about 12 percent, or $1.2 million dollars a year. (No sense in getting greedy.)

Every time I watch a Republican debate, and hear these supposedly anti-welfare crowds booing the idea of stiffer regulation of Wall Street, I wonder how many audience members know that Bair’s plan is more or less exactly the revenue model for all of America’s biggest banks. You go to the Fed, get a buttload of free money, lend it out at interest (perversely enough, including loans right back to the U.S. government), then pocket the profit.http://www.democracynow.org/embed/story/2011/7/22/pushing_crisis_gop_cries_wolf_on

Logo of the United States Federal Deposit Insu...

Logo of the United States Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which incorporates the seal. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Considering that we now know that the Fed gave out something like $16 trillion in secret emergency loans to big banks on top of the bailouts we actually knew about, you might ask yourself: How are these guys in financial trouble? How can they not be making mountains of money, risk-free? But they are in financial trouble:

• We’re about to see yet another big blow to all of the usual suspects – Goldman, Citi, Bank of America, and especially Morgan Stanley, all of whom face potential downgrades by Moody’s in the near future.

We’ve known this was coming for some time, but the news this week is that the giant money-managing firm BlackRock is talking about moving its business elsewhere. Laurence Fink, BlackRock’s CEO, told the New York Times: “If Moody’s does indeed downgrade these institutions, we may have a need to move some business around to higher-rated institutions.”

It’s one thing when Zero Hedge, William Black, myself, or some rogue Fed officers in Dallas decide to point fingers at the big banks. But when big money players stop trading with those firms, that’s when the death spirals begin.

Morgan Stanley in particular should be sweating. They’re apparently going to be downgraded three notches, where they’ll be joining Citi and Bank of America at a level just above junk. But no worries: Bank CFO Ruth Porat announced that a three-level downgrade was “manageable” and that only losers rely totally on agencies like Moody’s to judge creditworthiness. “A lot of clients are doing their own credit work,” she said.

• Meanwhile, Bank of America reported its first-quarter results yesterday. Despite that massive ongoing support from the Fed, it earned just $653 million in the first quarter, but astonishingly the results were hailed by most of the financial media as good news. Its home-turf paper, the San Francisco Chronicle, crowed that BOA “Posts Higher Profits As Trading Results Rebound.” Bloomberg, meanwhile, summed up results this way: “Bank of America Beats Analyst Estimates As Trading Jumps.”

But the New York Times noted that BOA’s first-quarter profit of $653 million was down from $2 billion a year ago, and paled compared to results of more successful banks like Chase and Wells Fargo.

Zero Hedge, meanwhile, posted an amusing commentary on BOA’s results, pointing out that the bank quietly reclassified nearly two billion dollars’ worth of real estate loans. This is from BOA’s report:

During 1Q12, the bank regulatory agencies jointly issued interagency supervisory guidance on nonaccrual policies for junior-lien consumer real estate loans. In accordance with this new guidance, beginning in 1Q12, we classify junior-lien home equity loans as nonperforming when the first-lien loan becomes 90 days past due even if the junior-lien loan is performing. As a result of this change, we reclassified $1.85B of performing home equity loans to nonperforming.

In other words, Bank of America described nearly two billion dollars of crap on their books as performing loans, until the government this year forced them to admit it was crap.

ZH and others also noted that BOA wildly underestimated its exposure to litigation, but that’s nothing new. Anyway, despite the inconsistencies in its report, and despite the fact that it’s about to be downgraded – again – Bank of America’s shares are up again, pushing $9 today.

Post Foreclosure and Reversing your CA Foreclosure Sale under new Case Law

7 Apr

Reversing a foreclosure sale:  Avoiding the “Tender Rule”

Firm commentary:

Foreclosure auction signs

Foreclosure auction signs (Photo credit: niallkennedy)

If you are considering suing to reverse a foreclosure sale, consider the LONA case for a better understanding on CA non-judicial sales and exceptions to the requirement that you must offer to pay off the loan to title to your home back in your name.

After a nonjudicial foreclosure sale has been completed, the traditional method by which the sale is challenged is a suit in equity to set aside the trustee’s sale. (Anderson v. Heart Federal Sav. & Loan Assn. (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 202, 209-210.) Generally, a challenge to the validity of a trustee’s sale is an attempt to have the sale set aside and to have the title restored. (Onofrio v. Rice (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 413, 424 (Onofrio), citing 4 Miller & Starr, Cal. Real Estate (2d ed. 1989) Deeds of Trusts & Mortgages, § 9.154, pp. 507-508.)

 

The burden of proof is on the former owner:

A nonjudicial foreclosure sale is accompanied by a common law presumption that it ‗was conducted regularly and fairly.  This presumption may only be rebutted by substantial evidence of prejudicial procedural irregularity. The mere inadequacy of price, absent some procedural irregularity that contributed to the inadequacy of price or otherwise injured the trustor, is insufficient to set aside a nonjudicial foreclosure sale.

It is the burden of the party challenging the trustee’s sale to prove such irregularity and thereby overcome the presumption of the sale’s regularity.‖ (Melendrez v. D & I Investment, Inc. (2005) 127 Cal. App.4th 1238, 1258 (Melendrez) In addition, under section 2924,6 there is a conclusive statutory presumption created in favor of a bona fide purchaser who receives a trustee’s deed that contains a recital that the trustee has fulfilled its statutory notice requirements. (Melendrez, supra, 127 Cal App.4th at p. 1250.)

Case law instructs that the elements of an equitable cause of action to set aside a foreclosure sale are: (1) the trustee or mortgagee caused an illegal, fraudulent, or willfully oppressive sale of real property pursuant to a power of sale in a mortgage or deed of trust;

(2) the party attacking the sale (usually but not always the trustor or mortgagor) was prejudiced or harmed; and

(3) in cases where the trustor or mortgagor challenges the sale, the trustor or mortgagor tendered the amount of the secured indebtedness or was excused from tendering. (Bank of America etc. Assn. v. Reidy, supra, 15 Cal.2d at p. 248; Saterstrom v. Glick Bros. Sash, Door & Mill Co. (1931) 118 Cal.App. 379, 383 (Saterstrom) [trustee’s sale set aside where deed of trust was void because it failed to adequately describe property]; Stockton v. Newman (1957) 148 Cal.App.2d 558, 564 (Stockton) [trustor sought rescission of the contract to purchase the property and the promissory note on grounds of fraud]; Sierra-Bay Fed. Land Bank Ass’n v. Superior Court (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 318, 337 (Sierra-Bay) [to set aside sale, ―debtor must allege such unfairness or irregularity that, when coupled with the inadequacy of price obtained at the sale, it is appropriate to invalidate the sale‖; ―debtor must offer to do equity by making a tender or otherwise offering to pay his debt‖]; Abadallah v. United Savings Bank (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1101, 1109 (Abadallah) [tender element]; Munger v. Moore (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 1, 7 [damages action for wrongful foreclosure]; see also 1 Bernhardt, Mortgages, Deeds of Trust and Foreclosure Litigation (Cont.Ed.Bar 4th ed. 2011 supp.) § 7.67, pp. 580-581 and cases cited therein summarizing grounds for setting aside trustee sale.)

 

The Tender requirement

Because the action is in equity, a defaulted borrower who seeks to set aside a trustee’s sale is required to do equity before the court will exercise its equitable powers. (MCA, Inc. v. Universal Diversified Enterprises Corp. (1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 170, 177 (MCA).)

Consequently, as a condition precedent to an action by the borrower to set aside the trustee’s sale on the ground that the sale is voidable because of irregularities in the sale notice or procedure, the borrower must offer to pay the full amount of the debt for which the property was security. (Abadallah, supra, 43 Cal.App.4th at p. 1109; Onofrio, supra, at p. 424 [the borrower must pay, or offer to pay, the secured debt, or at least all of the delinquencies and costs due for redemption, before commencing the action].)

The rationale behind the rule is that if [the borrower] could not have redeemed the property had the sale procedures been proper, any irregularities in the sale did not result in damages to the [borrower]. (FPCI RE-HAB 01 v. E & G Investments, Ltd. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1018, 1022.)

 

A series of cases have come down in the last few weeks that have some very serious ramifications for lenders.

The most dramatic case is that of Lona v. Citibank, based on a property right here in my back yard. The fact pattern in Lona is that the bank foreclosed and Lona sued the bank to void the sale on the absurd theory that the lender made him an unconscionable loan he couldn’t possibly afford therefore the loan was void. (Apparently, he’s a mushroom farmer in Hollister making $40k/yr)*.

Lona alleged that he agreed to refinance the home, on which he owed $1.24 million at the time, in response to an ad. The monthly payments were more than four times his income, so unsurprisingly, he defaulted within five months and the home was sold at a trustee’s sale in August 2008.

Lona obtained two re-financed loans: the first being $1.125 million, a 30-year term and an interest rate that was fixed at 8.25% for five years and adjustable annually after that, with a cap of 13.255 and the second loan being $375,000, with a term of 15 years, a fixed rate of 12.25%, monthly payments of nearly $4,000, and a balloon payment of $327,000 at the end of the 15 year term.

Lona testified that English was not his first language, he was 50 years old at the time of the loan and he that he did not understand the loan documents. Of course, he also did not read the loan documents.

After Citibank foreclosed, it filed an unlawful detainer action (“UD”) to evict Lona, but the UD was consolidated with Lona’s lawsuit to void and set aside the foreclosure sale. According to Citibank, Lona had been “living for free” in the house and had not posted bond or paid any “impound funds.” (since 2007!!!)

San Benito County Superior Court Judge Harry Tobias said Lona’s “bare allegations” were not enough to persuade him that the bank or the broker had engaged in misconduct and that it was “hard to believe” that the Lonas weren’t “responsible for their own conduct,” especially since they owned other property that had been foreclosed upon.

Despite the craziness of Plaintiff’s theory, the appellate court rendered a 32 page opinion that discussed in major detail that:
1) The borrower did not have to tender offer (which goes against almost a century of a legal precedent); and
2) The borrower’s allegations of the loan being unconscionable were not wholly disproven by the lenders.

The Court decision stated “Lona had received $1.5 million from the lenders and had not made any payments since June 2007. Meanwhile, he and his wife continued to live in the house for free, without paying rent or any impound funds…” and so it was quite aware of the inequities or injustice of the situation. However, the Court still concluded that the Lenders did not meet their burden of proof on summary judgment and so the case may continue at its snail pace until trial. [Lona v. Citibank No. H036140. Court of Appeals of California, Sixth District. (December 21, 2011.)]

The other case that came down a week before Lona (Dec. 21) was the Bardasian (Dec. 15) case, where the borrower sued because the lender’s trustee did not discuss loan mod options with her as required by Civil Code Section 2923.5. The court granted the borrower’s injunction and like Lona, the borrowers did not tender, nor put up an undertaking or surety for the bond. The lower court had ruled at the injunction hearing that the trustee had not complied with the code and that Bardasian must bond in the amount of $20k. When she failed to do so, the lower court dissolved the injunction.

On appeal, the appellate court concluded that since the injunction had been issued after the court had ruled on the merits stating:

“Plaintiff seeks postponement of the foreclosure sale until the defendants comply with Civil Code [section] 2923.5. Plaintiff has established that BAC Home Loan Servicing did not comply with Civil Code section 2923.5 prior to the issuance of the notice of default on September 15, 2010.” “Plaintiff states under penalty of perjury that no contact was ever made at least 30 days before the notice of default was issued…”

that the injunction was not actually “preliminary” at all, but that the plaintiffs had essentially won their argument showing that the defendants had not complied with Section 2923.5 and so no Notice of Default could successfully issue and the trustee’s sale could not take place until Section 2923.5 had been complied with. (Bardasian v. Santa Clara Partners Mortgage C068488. Court of Appeals of California, Third District. (December 15, 2011).

So in one month, two appellate cases came down where the borrower could either pursue voiding a trustee’s sale or enjoin one without tendering!

2012 will prove to be an interesting year as more decisions stemming from the subprime meltdown start coming down the pipeline.

* The decision contained a footnote that Lona’s loan application that apparently stated Lona made $20k/month, or $240k/yr. Clearly, as stated income loans go, that was a whopper!

The Exceptions to the Tender requirement under LONA

First, if the borrower’s action attacks the validity of the underlying debt, a tender is not required since it would constitute an affirmation of the debt. (Stockton, supra, (1957) 148 Cal.App.2d at p. 564) [trustor sought rescission of the contract to purchase the property and the promissory note on grounds of fraud]; Onofrio, supra, 55 Cal.App.4th at p. 424.)

Second, a tender will not be required when the person who seeks to set aside the trustee’s sale has a counter-claim or set-off against the beneficiary. In such cases, it is deemed that the tender and the counter claim offset one another, and if the offset is equal to or greater than the amount due, a tender is not required. (Hauger, supra, (1954) 42 Cal.2d at p. 755.)

 

Third, a tender may not be required where it would be inequitable to impose such a condition on the party challenging the sale. (Humboldt Savings Bank v. McCleverty (1911) 161 Cal. 285, 291 (Humboldt). In Humboldt, the defendant’s deceased husband borrowed $55,300 from the plaintiff bank secured by two pieces of property. The defendant had a $5,000 homestead on one of the properties. (Id. at p. 287.) When the defendant’s husband defaulted on the debt, the bank foreclosed on both properties. In response to the bank’s argument that the defendant had to tender the entire debt as a condition precedent to having the sale set aside, the court held that it would be inequitable to require the defendant to•pay, or offer to pay, a debt of $57,000, for which she is in no way liable to attack the sale of her $5,000 homestead.10 (Id. at p. 291.)

Fourth, no tender will be required when the trustor is not required to rely on equity to attack the deed because the trustee’s deed is void on its face. (Dimock, supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at p. 878 [beneficiary substituted trustees; trustee’s sale void where original trustee completed trustee’s sale after being replaced by new trustee because original trustee no longer had power to convey property].)

 For a better understanding of how this new case affects your individual situation, contact the Firm and set up an appointment.

%d bloggers like this: