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 Property
Foreclosure
Loan Modification

Ruth Santana v. Select Portfolio Servicing Inc., et al.

Published: Nov. 5, 2021 | Result Date: Oct. 8, 2021 | Filing Date: Dec. 21, 2020 |

Case number: 20STCV48687 Summary Judgment –  Defense

Judge

Maurice A. Leiter

Court

Los Angeles County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Anthony P. Cara
(CDLG PC)


Defendant

Neil J. Cooper
(Houser LLP)


Facts

Ruth Santana submitted a loan modification application to Specialized Loan Servicing. Specialized Loan Servicing is a mortgage servicing company that collects on residential mortgages. Besides loan modifications, it purchases mortgage loans from other lenders or banks. Santana filed suit against Specialized Loan and Times Square Revolving Trust after her loan modification application went unacknowledged and she was not assigned a point of contact.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that defendants violated several Civil Code sections that pertain to loan servicing. Specifically, Civil Code Section 2923.7 which requires a loan servicer to promptly establish a single point of contact and provide the borrower with a means of communication with that contact. She further alleged violations of Section 2924.10 and unfair competition laws.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied all contentions. Defendant noted that it provided a point of contact the day after plaintiff submitted its loan modification application. Also, defendant did provide receipt of the application within five days as required by statute. As to the unfair competition laws, defendants informed plaintiff as to when and what further information was necessary to complete her application, and also acknowledged and responded to her communications. Finally, they notified her when the loan was sold or assigned.

Result

Summary judgment was granted in favor of defendant.


#137961

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

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