Husband v. Household Finance etc. CA3

Filed 3/4/15 Husband v. Household Finance etc. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

NOAH HUSBAND et al.,

Plaintiffs and Appellants, C073182

v. (Super. Ct. No. 39201200282057CUORSTK) HOUSEHOLD FINANCE CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Noah and Helen Husband (Borrowers) sued the holder and servicer of their residential mortgage -- Household Finance Corporation of California (HFC) and HSBC Bank USA, N.A. (HSBC) (collectively Lenders) -- asserting a cause of action for promissory estoppel. The trial court sustained Lenders’ demurrer without leave to amend. Borrowers now contend they sufficiently pleaded the elements of promissory estoppel. We disagree. We will affirm the judgment of dismissal.

1

BACKGROUND The following facts are alleged in the first amended complaint. Borrowers obtained a home mortgage from HFC in 2006. At all relevant times the loan was serviced by HSBC. Borrowers hired Andrew T. Cook and Company (Cook), a company that helps homeowners obtain loan modifications, in August 2009. In April 2010, despite Cook’s efforts, HSBC recorded a notice of default on the mortgage. In May 2010, however, HSBC rescinded the notice of default and verbally informed Joel Atwater, an employee for Cook, that Borrowers “were to receive a permanent modification” with payments of $1,756 per month and that permanent modification documents would be drawn after Borrowers made timely payments during a six-month trial period. After making six timely payments of $1,756, Borrowers inquired about documentation of the promised permanent loan modification. HSBC replied that it allowed only six-month temporary loan modifications, never permanent modifications, and the loan payment would be reverting back to its higher original amount. HFC knew about and encouraged HSBC’s actions. In reliance on the promise of permanent modification, Borrowers paid for and sent cashier’s checks, gave Lenders personal financial information to which they were not otherwise entitled, and refrained from taking other steps to save their home, including spreading their arrearages over a five- year period by filing for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. As additional damages, Borrowers alleged the cost of sending financial documents multiple times, an unspecified increase in the loan balance and arrearages, and the cost of hiring an attorney. Borrowers do not allege that there was any foreclosure sale; they allege the subject property “is” their personal residence. Lenders filed a demurrer, asserting that Borrowers had not sufficiently pleaded detrimental reliance resulting in a corresponding benefit to Lenders. The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend.