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.

Contracts
Breach of Contract
Slander of Title

Tricia Reyes-Aguilar, Edward Aguilar v. Bank of America N.A.; Citibank N.A.; Reconstruct Company N.A.; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc., and Does 1 through 100, inclusive

Published: Mar. 7, 2015 | Result Date: Jun. 24, 2014 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 3:13-cv-05764-JCS Bench Decision –  Defense

Court

USDC Northern


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Megan Ann Dailey

Michael J. Yesk
(Yesk Law)


Defendant

Tracy Kathleen Evans-Moyer

Gwen H. Ribar
(Wright Finlay & Zak LLP)

Todd R. Whitehorn


Facts

Tricia Reyes-Aguilar and Edward Aguilar sued Bank of America NA, Citibank NA, Reconstruct Co. NA, and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs alleged that they borrowed $461,500 to purchase a home located in Hayward and secured by a deed of trust. They later entered into a loan modification agreement with the servicer. Following plaintiffs default, the beneficiary of the deed of trust instituted foreclosure procedures. Plaintiffs alleged that the foreclosure was wrongful because the parties that initiated it, defendants, had not lawful interest in the deed of trust. As such, plaintiffs sued, asserting claims for breach of express agreement, breach of implied agreement, slander of title, wrongful foreclosure, violations of Civil Code Section 2923.5, violations of 18 U.S.C. 1962, violations of California Civil Code Section 1788, violations of California Business and Profession Code Section 17200, and injunctive relief.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim for relief.

Result

The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, finding plaintiffs failed to state a claim for relief despite being given the opportunity to amend their complaint. The court also concluded that amendment would be futile, and dismissed plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice.

Other Information

FILING DATE: Dec. 12, 2013.


#122734

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

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