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.

Real Estate
Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Mortgage Broker Malpractice

Jorge Borja, Christina Borja v. California Home Center Group Inc.

Published: Aug. 30, 2008 | Result Date: Jun. 25, 2008 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 07CC03303 Bench Decision –  Defense

Court

Orange Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

John F. Bazan


Defendant

Stephen E. Abraham
(Law Offices of Stephen Abraham)


Facts

Plaintiffs Jorge Borja, Christina Borja, Eva Figueroa, Raymundo Garay, Pedro Rivera and Juan Castro completed three refinance transactions as well as one sale and purchase arrangement with defendants California Home Center Group Inc. and their broker, Bryan Osuna.

The plaintiffs filed suit for breach of fiduciary duty.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiffs contended that after guaranteeing certain loan terms, the defendants pulled a "bait and switch" by providing wholly different terms when the loan transactions were completed.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
The defendants claimed that there was no fraud or concealment as the loan was offered and accepted with full disclosure of the terms. The defendants contended that plaintiffs were well aware of the loan benefits as well as the detriments and thereby, could not now complain that they were deceived.

Damages

According to the defendant, plaintiffs demanded in excess of $2,000,000.

Result

The trial court found for the defendants, California Home Center Group Inc. (CHCG) and Bryan Osuna. Further, the court determined that there was no independent factual or legal basis to conclude that Osuna had any liability to the plaintiffs for conduct falling within the scope of his duties to CHCG. On June 25, 2008, judgment for nonsuit based on Osuna's motion, was incorporated into the final judgment. As to defendant CHCG, the trial court determined that the plaintiffs had failed to prove the second and third elements for breach of fiduciary duty. These elements are, respectively, "that the defendant knowingly acted against plaintiff's interest in connection with the transaction or acted on behalf of a party whose interests were adverse to plaintiffs in connection with the transaction" and "that the defendant failed to act as a reasonably careful mortgage loan broker and/or real estate agent would have acted under the same or similar circumstances". Final judgment was entered for the defendants.


#101809

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

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390