Eboreime v. Bank of America, N.A. CA2/4

Filed 11/3/15 Eboreime v. Bank of America, N.A. CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

BABATUNDE A. EBOREIME B259803

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC528559) v.

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

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michelle R. Rosenblatt, Judge. Affirmed. Babatunde A. Eboreime, in pro. per. for Plaintiff and Appellant. Severson & Werson, Jan T. Chilton, Jonah S. Van Zandt and Kerry W. Franich for Defendants and Respondents.

______________________________

In this action for fraudulent concealment and violation of the unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 (UCL)), plaintiff Babatunde A. Eboreime appeals from the judgment dismissing his complaint against defendants Bank of America, N.A. (BANA) and its employees, Seda Babadjanians, Tran N. Nguyen, and Stephanie Powell (BANA employees) after their demurrer was sustained without leave to amend. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY In an appeal from a dismissal after the sustaining of a demurrer, we accept as true the material allegations of the complaint. (Carter v. Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley LLC (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 396, 401.) The facts as alleged in plaintiff’s first amended complaint, the operative pleading, are summarized as follows. In 1976, Eboreime acquired a house at 3948 Park Vista Avenue in Pasadena. On August 27, 2007, Eboreime obtained a refinance loan from BANA in the amount of $565,560. In the process of obtaining the loan, BANA employees orally represented to Eboreime that he would be offered a loan at an interest rate that was no greater than four percent. After BANA employees cultivated his trust, they directed him to sign a large stack of documents, telling him to “sign here” and “initial here.” Eboreime did not know 1 that he was committing to a fixed interest rate of seven percent. In 2010, after experiencing financial difficulty, Eboreime retained a “forensic examiner” to review his loan documents. Through this process, he discovered the interest rate on his loan was seven percent. Subsequently, Eboreime sent several written requests to BANA, asking that his interest rate be reduced to make his mortgage payments more affordable. He also applied for a loan modification under the federal Home Affordable Modification Program. The federal agency determined he was ineligible for the program. In October 2011, a notice of default was recorded under Eboreime’s deed of trust, stating that he was $62,577.33 in arrears on his loan. In an effort to avoid foreclosure, Eboreime filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition in March 2013. The schedule filed with 1 The parties refer to the interest rate as both “seven percent” and “7.12 percent.” We refer to it here as “seven percent.” 2