Conroy v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

A loan servicer owes a borrower no duty of care in handling his home loan modification application; also, unless the borrower documents a change in financial circumstances, dual tracking prohibitions do not apply to second/subsequent loan modification requests, even if the lender accepts, processes, and reviews the later loan applications.  This decision holds that a…

Berman v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A.

A loan servicer violates Civil Code section 2923.6 by sending the borrower a loan modification denial letter erroneously stating that the borrower has only 15 days to appeal the denial.  Civil Code 2923.6 proscribes dual tracking—proceeding with foreclosure while a complete loan modification application is under review.  The section also requires a loan servicer to…

Gillies v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.

The dismissal of a borrower’s fourth foreclosure delay lawsuit is affirmed based on res judicata and a lack of merit in the borrower’s securitization arguments.  In a short, tartly worded opinion, the court affirms dismissal of a borrower/attorney’s fourth lawsuit trying to stall foreclosure of his defaulted home loan.  It holds plaintiff had no viable…

Lucioni v. Bank of America, N.A.

Nothing in the Homeowners’ Bill of Rights requires a foreclosing party to prove, prior to foreclosure, that it has the right to foreclose; rather, the statute allows pre-foreclosure injunction actions only for violation of certain specified HBOR sections, which are enumerated in sections 2924.12 and 2924.19 of the Civil Code.  HBOR gives a borrower no…

Sese v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

An order denying an interim award of attorney’s fees under the Homeowner’s Bill of Rights after the borrower/plaintiff was successful in obtaining issuance of a preliminary injunction to prevent foreclosure, is interlocutory and therefore non-appealable.  An order denying an interim award of attorney fees under Civ. Code 2924.12(i) after the borrower/plaintiff was successful in obtaining…