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.

Banking
Negligent Misrepresentation
Violations of the Homeowner Bill of Rights

Allan W. Reumont v. The Bank of New York Mellon fka The Bank of New York, as successor trustee to JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA, as trustee for Holdeers of Sami ii Trust 2006-AR2, MMortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006 AR2; Bank of America Homeloans, a subsidiary of Bank of America, NA, Bank of America, NA; Reconstruct Company NA, a wholly-owne

Published: Mar. 5, 2016 | Result Date: Jan. 28, 2016 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 30-2013-00651353-CU-OR-CJC Bench Decision –  Dismissal

Court

Orange Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Craig J. Beauchamp

Victor W. Luke
(Law Firm of VW Luke APLC)

Joshua E. Brown
(Collins Collins Muir + Stewart LLP)


Defendant

Peter J. Kennedy
(Reed Smith LLP)

Molly T. Zapala

Alexandra C. Seibert
(Hassard Bonnington LLP)

Jamie D. Wells


Facts

On Jan. 10, 2006, Allan Reumont obtained a residential mortgage in the amount of $1.5 million from Countrywide Home Loans Inc., secured by a deed of trust recorded against the property. Reumont sued defendants for violations of the Homeowner Bill of Rights, negligent misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation, and unfair business practices.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Reumont contended that assignments of the deed of trust that purported to vest an interest in the subject property to Bank of New York Mellon were invalid and had no legal force or effect. He further claimed that his loan modification application was still pending and that he had to obtain a temporary restraining order to stop the foreclosure, which had already been postponed.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants contended that Reumont entered into a settlement with defendants on the record to resolve the mortgage dispute, but that he subsequently refused to sign the written settlement agreement and vacate the premises, claiming there never was such an agreement.

Result

The court granted defendants' motion for judgment pursuant to CCP Section 664.6 and ordered Reumont to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement.

Other Information

FILING DATE: Jan. 15, 2014.


#112861

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

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