This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
This MCLE has expired.

Jolley v. Chase Home Finance LLC

Borrower may pursue breach of contract and related claims against bank in construction loan dispute after bank purchased loan commitments from failed bank.





Cite as

2013 DJDAR 2994

Published

Mar. 8, 2013

Filing Date

Mar. 7, 2013


SCOTT CALL JOLLEY,

SCOTT CALL JOLLEY,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC, et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

 

No.  A134019

(Marin County

Super. Ct. No. CIV1002039)

California Courts of Appeal

First Appellate District

Division Two

Filed March 7, 2013

 

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION

AND DENYING REHEARING

[NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]

 

THE COURT:

 

It is ordered that the published opinion filed herein on February 11, 2013, be modified as follows:

 

1. At the top of page 6, first line, the sentence that reads, ?Jolley further testified that as a result of  these representations he was induced to complete construction at a cost of $100,000, borrowing from family and friends to do so? shall be deleted and replaced with the following sentence:

 

Jolley further testified that as a result of these representations he was induced to ?borrow heavily to finish the project.?

 

2. On page 29, second full paragraph, first line, the sentence that reads, ?He invested $100,000 in finishing construction on the property shortly before foreclosure proceedings were initiated? shall be deleted and replaced with the following sentence:

 

He invested funds borrowed from other sources in finishing construction on the property shortly before foreclosure proceedings were initiated.

 

3. On page 29, second full paragraph, the last sentence that reads, ?Had Jolley known that Chase would ultimately foreclose on the property, he would have had no incentive to invest an additional $100,000 in its completion? shall be deleted.  No new sentence is required.

 

There is no change in the judgment.

Respondent?s petition for rehearing is denied.

 

 

Trial Court:

     Marin County Superior Court

 

Trial Judge:

     Honorable Lynne Duryee

 

Attorney for Plaintiff and Appellant:

     Law Offices of Vernon Bradley, Vernon Bradley

 

Attorneys for Defendants and Respondents:

     Law Offices of Sohnen & Kelly, Harvey Sohnen, Patricia M. Kelly

 

 

#238644

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424