Ivanoff v. Bank of America CA2/2

Filed 5/13/15 Ivanoff v. Bank of America CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

MARINA IVANOFF, B256462

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC514572) v.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Ernest Hiroshige, Judge. Affirmed.

Marina Ivanoff, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Bryan Cave, Christopher L. Dueringer, Alfred Shaumyan for Defendants and Respondents.

___________________________________________________

Plaintiff Marina Ivanoff sued defendants and respondents Bank of America, N.A., successor to BAC Home Loans Servicing LP and Countrywide Bank, FSB (collectively, Bank of America), ReconTrust Company, N.A., and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., contending that defendants agreed to modify her home loan and then improperly changed the terms of the agreement. The trial court sustained a demurrer to Ivanoff’s first amended complaint without leave to amend. Treating the trial court’s order as incorporating a judgment of dismissal, we affirm. BACKGROUND Ivanoff filed her original complaint in July 2013, asserting purported claims for breach of contract, temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq., specific performance, and equitable rescission. Ivanoff alleged that she is the owner of a property in Los Angeles. When she refinanced the loan on the property in around 2006, undisclosed penalties and fees were added, causing her loan to become unaffordable and leading to her default. Ivanoff sought a modification of her loan and, according to her complaint, defendant Bank of America agreed to modify the loan. Defendants breached the modification agreement, however, by requiring a monthly “escrow option insurance” payment. Defendants filed a demurrer to the complaint, raising numerous arguments as to why each of Ivanoff’s claims failed. In opposing the demurrer, Ivanoff failed to address most of these arguments. The trial court sustained the demurrer, finding, among other things: “Plaintiff has not attached a copy of the subject agreements to the complaint, alleged whether the agreements were oral, written, or implied, or alleged the material terms in sufficient detail.” The trial court also found that certain of plaintiff’s claims, as pleaded, were barred by the statute of limitations and others were barred by the statute of frauds. Ivanoff was given leave to amend. The first amended complaint filed by Ivanoff was nearly identical to the original complaint. As with the original complaint, it failed to attach any alleged agreement or