Wayne K. Hazelrigg; Jo K. Hazelrigg v. Home Servicing of America
Published: Apr. 5, 1997 | Result Date: Feb. 27, 1997 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: VC019745 – $0
Judge
Court
L.A. Superior Norwalk
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Kirk D. Dillman
(McKool Smith Hennigan PC)
Experts
Defendant
James A. Spielmann
(technical)
James Tassel
(technical)
Diane D. Schooler
(technical)
Richard E. Grossman
(technical)
Facts
In November 1989, plaintiffs Wayne and Jo Hazelrigg purchased an estate in the Friendly Hills area of Whittier. The plaintiffs hoped to make certain improvements and resell the property for a substantial profit within the year. In July 1990, the plaintiffs obtained a $600,000 loan from Home Savings of America secured by the property. Defendant Home Servicing of America serviced the loan for Home Savings. The Southern California real estate market crashed shortly thereafter. By mid 1993, the plaintiffs were in desperate financial straits. The improvements on the property were significantly more expensive than they had anticipated and they could not sell the property. The plaintiffs had no income, and they could not meet their payments under the loan. They were unable to obtain refinancing as their income would not support a conventional loan and the value of the property and their credit history would not support a "hard money" or "easy-qualifier" loan. The plaintiffs became delinquent on their loan in July 1993. The defendant agreed to a repayment agreement and allowed the plaintiffs to make only one-half of their regular monthly payments for a period of four months followed by a "catch-up" period of one and one-half times the regular monthly payments until the loan was brought current. The defendant claimed that in September 1993, Home Servicing inadvertently posted one of the plaintiffs' partial payments under the repayment agreement to another customer's loan. As a result, Home Servicing's automated credit reporting system erroneously reported the plaintiffs delinquent to the credit reporting agencies. Home Servicing claimed it learned of the mistake in early January 1994 and within weeks, it instructed the credit reporting agencies to delete the derogatory credit report, and provided the plaintiffs with a letter advising prospective lenders that the derogatory credit information had been reported in error. Home Servicing also paid one of the plaintiffs' regular loan payments. The plaintiffs brought this action against the defendant based on negligence, fraud, breach of contract, infliction of emotional distress and violations of Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiffs made a settlement demand for $100,000 plus refinancing of the loan on the property. The defendant offered $25,000, reduced to $5,000 at trial.
Damages
The plaintiffs claimed special damages of $600,000 for loss of real property and $200,000 for loss of business.
Other Information
The decision was rendered approximately one year and seven months after the case was filed. Summary adjudication was granted in favor of the defendant on the plaintiffs' claims for fraud and infliction of emotional distress and their claims under the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (Cal. Civ. Code ºº1785.1 et seq.) The case was tried on the remaining claims of breach of contract and negligence. Per the defendant, the defendant's motion for nonsuit was granted before the close of the plaintiffs' case on the ground that there was no evidence that the plaintiffs were denied a loan or were otherwise damaged as a result of any act or omission by the defendant.
Length
5 days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390