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.

Torts
Intentional Misrepresentation
Violation of Homeowner's Bill of Rights Civil Code Section 2923.6(c)

Cherie Adams v. Axiom Bank, Roundpoint Mortgage Servicing Corporation, and Does 1 to 20, inclusive

Published: Dec. 17, 2016 | Result Date: Nov. 7, 2016 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 30-2015-00825631-CU-FR-CJC Demurrer –  Defense

Court

Orange Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Ashishkuma A. Patel
(Law Office of Ashishkumar Patel APC)


Defendant

Todd E. Chvat
(Wright Finlay & Zak LLP)

Kristina M. Pelletier
(Wright, Finlay & Zak LLP)

T. Robert Finlay
(Wright Finlay & Zak)


Facts

Cherie Adams sued Axiom Bank and Roundpoint Mortgage Servicing Corp.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
IIn 2014, plaintiff sought a home loan modification due to the economic downturn. Plaintiff allegedly relied on defendant Axiom's representations that she was pre-approved for a loan modification. Thereafter, defendant Roundpoint recorded a Notice of Default on plaintiff's property. Plaintiff was unaware that Roundpoint had been substituted as trustee under the Deed of Trust. Axiom allegedly told plaintiff that the Notice of Default was recorded in error and instructed plaintiff to ignore it. In June, Roundpoint recorded a Notice of Trustee's Sale on plaintiff's property of which plaintiff had no prior notice. Again, Axiom told plaintiff the Notice of Trustee's Sale was recorded in error and should be ignored. In July, Axiom denied plaintiff's loan modification application and, immediately thereafter, defendants sold plaintiff's property at auction. Thereafter, the purchaser instituted eviction proceedings on plaintiff. Plaintiff eventually obtained a rescission of the trustee's sale. Plaintiff sought another modification, which defendants dragged on in a very slow process. Plaintiff later sued defendants for engaging in bad faith regarding her loan modification negotiation. Plaintiff asserted causes of action for violation of Homeowners Bill of Rights, Civil Code Section 2923.6(c), intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, violation of Business and Professions Code Section 17200, and promissory estoppel.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants demurred, challenging the sufficiency of plaintiff's allegations. The complaint allegedly does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

Result

The court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend on the ground that, inter alia, plaintiff's husband was also a co-borrower on the loan, which may expose defendants to multiple and inconsistent rulings. Adams should be joined as a party.

Other Information

FILING DATE: Dec. 16, 2015.


#85018

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

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