Hart v. Rushmore Loan Management Services CA2/8

Filed 1/28/25 Hart v. Rushmore Loan Management Services CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

GUY HART, B333200

Plaintiff and Appellant, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 21SMCV01658 v.

RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mark H. Epstein, Judge. Affirmed. Shapero Law Firm and Sarah Shapero for Plaintiff and Appellant. Houser and Neil J. Cooper for Defendants and Respondents.

Guy Hart appeals the trial court’s order granting a motion for summary judgment by Rushmore Loan Management Services, Inc. (now known as Nationstar Mortgage, Inc.)and Athene Annuity and Life Insurance Company. We affirm. I Hart bought a Santa Monica condo in 1998 and has lived there since then. In 2004, Hart took out a $367,000 conventional loan secured against his condo. This loan was not backed by the government. Rushmore was Hart’s loan servicer, and Athene was the loan’s beneficiary and owner. Until March 2020, Hart was current on his loan. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, Hart applied for and received a three-month forbearance of loan payments from Rushmore. Under the forbearance, Hart’s next loan payment would be due on June 1, 2020. Hart failed to make his June 2020 payment. At the end of the month, Rushmore sent him a letter informing him of possible workout options that would allow him to avoid foreclosure. The letter advised Hart to contact Rushmore to discuss potential workout options and enclosed a borrower assistance application. In mid-August of 2020, Rushmore sent another letter to Hart, explaining Rushmore’s process for evaluating options to assist Hart. It informed Hart that Rushmore could not move forward with evaluating Hart for workout options because Hart failed to provide the required documentation, including a signed and dated hardship letter thoroughly explaining what caused his inability to maintain payments on the loan, bank statements, and proof of income. Hart responded by calling Rushmore, claiming to be “officially on the one-year” government forbearance program. In