Sellner v. Chase Home Finance CA2/6

Filed 12/19/13 Sellner v. Chase Home Finance CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

ALLEN SELLNER AND MARGARET 2d Civil No. B238085 SELLNER, (Super. Ct. No. 56-2010-0037348-CU-DR- VTA) Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Ventura County)

v.

CHASE HOME FINANCE INC., et al,

Defendants and Respondents.

Allan and Margaret Sellner appeal from a summary judgment entered in favor of Chase Home Finance LLC and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A, respondents.1 Appellants sued respondents for defamation, contending that respondents had falsely reported to credit bureaus that appellants were delinquent on their mortgage loan. We affirm. Factual and Procedural Background In 2004 Washington Mutual Bank loaned appellants $325,000. The loan was secured by a deed of trust encumbering appellants' residence. The loan was serviced by

1 Appellants' complaint erroneously named the defendants as Chase Home Finance, Inc., Chase Home Finance LLC, and JPMorgan Chase Bank. The correct designations for the defendants are Chase Home Finance LLC and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

respondent Chase Home Finance LLC (Chase). Respondent JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A, is the successor in interest to Washington Mutual Bank and Chase. On April 1, 2009, the monthly payment on the loan increased from $1,286.46 to $1,582.74. The payment was due on the first day of each month. Appellants paid $1,582.74 in April and the same amount on May 5, 2009. When the monthly payment increased, appellants applied for a loan modification. "On April 29, 2009, Chase determined that [appellants] did not qualify for loan modification due to excessive obligations (i.e. debt)." In a letter dated May 7, 2009, Chase notified appellants that they had "been approved for a Special Forbearance Agreement [SFA], which provides temporary relief from your loan payments." The letter included the following warning in capital letters: "WE HAVE TOLD A CREDIT BUREAU ABOUT A LATE PAYMENT, MISSED PAYMENT OR OTHER DEFAULT ON YOUR ACCOUNT. THIS INFORMATION MAY BE REFLECTED IN YOUR CREDIT REPORT." The SFA was attached to the letter. The SFA provided that, for the month of May 2009, appellants "must send $800 to reduce [their] total delinquency." But appellants had paid $1,582.74 on May 5, 2009, before they received the SFA. The SFA further provided that appellants must pay $800 on the first day of each month from June 2009 through September 2009. The SFA continued: "If all payments are made as scheduled, we [Chase] will reevaluate your application for assistance and determine if we are able to offer you a permanent workout solution to bring your loan current. [¶] All of the original terms of your loan remain in full force and effect, unless specifically mentioned within this agreement." Appellants signed the SFA. They made payments of $800 on June 2, July 1, July 31, September 4, October 6, and November 3, 2009. On November 27, 2009, Chase sent appellants a document entitled "Repayment Agreement." The agreement required appellants to pay $1,843.65 on the first day of each month from December 2009 through May 2011. After May 2011, appellants would "resume payment of regular monthly installments." The Repayment Agreement included