Facts

Husband and wife, James and Diane Badame, sued JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., as acquirer of certain assets and liabilities of Washington Mutual Bank from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as receiver for Washington Mutual Bank, and other defendants in connection with the foreclosure of their home located in Palos Verdes.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
In 1995, the Badames purchased the subject property located in Palos Verdes Estates. The Badames purchased the property for $900,000. In 2003, they commenced demolition and reconstruction of the property, which cost them approximately $3,327,367. In 2007, the property was appraised at $5.5 million. The Badames then obtained a loan for $3 million secured by a deed of trust on the property. In 2009, the Badames sought modification of their loan payment from Chase, which subsequently offered them a 3-month trial period. However, the Badames were unable to meet the reduced amount, and opted instead to sell the property in a short sale.

Plaintiffs contended that Chase declined their request for modification, and so they attempted to sell their property for $3 million. Plaintiffs contended that Chase denied this request as well. In 2010, the Badames submitted a counter-offer short sale to Chase for $3.050 million, which plaintiffs contended Chase again declined to approve.

In March, the Badames received a notice of default in the amount of $86,505, and an election to sell. Again, the Badames submitted an additional request for approval of a short sale for $3.05 million. In April, they submitted another request to approve an all cash short sale for $3.1 million. The request was set aside because, plaintiffs claimed, Chase refused to process the short sale and modification request concurrently. Meanwhile, James Badame received a job offer that they felt would improve their household income. In response, the parties agreed to withdraw any pending short sale requests, and plaintiffs contended that it was understood that their request for modification would be processed.

In June, the Badames received a notice of trustee's sale slated for June 25, 2010. Plaintiffs contended that Chase's representative assured them that there was ample time to extend the foreclosure sale, if necessary. The Badames repeatedly contacted Chase, which they claimed repeatedly gave assurances that the foreclosure date could be extended long enough to process their modification request. Relying on Chase's alleged assurances, the Badames "pre-sold" their current home in anticipation of Chase's approval of their request. Despite the assurances, Chase denied their modification request because the request was filed less than seven days from the date of the scheduled foreclosure sale. As a result, the sale of their home fell through. Later, plaintiffs contended Chase delayed review of the modification and improperly rejected the modification. Although Chase agreed to postpone the foreclosure, plaintiffs claimed that Chase later breached that agreement. Plaintiffs contended that Chase went on to agree to further suspend the foreclosure proceedings, but claimed that Chase nevertheless went ahead and improperly sold the property.

The Badames brought claims against Chase for wrongful foreclosure, breach of contract, unfair business practices, promissory estoppel, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and negligence.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendant contended that it made all appropriate steps to assist the plaintiffs.

Result

U.S. District Judge Percy Anderson entered judgment in favor of Chase.