Poblete v. Specialized Loan Servicing CA3
Filed 6/1/21 Poblete v. Specialized Loan Servicing CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Placer) ----
BENJAMIN POBLETE et al., C082815
Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Super. Ct. No. SCV0036635)
v.
SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING LLC et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
In August 2006, plaintiffs Benjamin and Inocencia Poblete entered into a refinance agreement with Countrywide Home Loans (Countrywide) for $564,750 secured by a deed of trust on their home. Bank of America, N.A. (Bank of America) serviced the loan until May 2012 when it transferred the servicing rights to defendant Specialized Loan Servicing (Specialized). Bank of New York was the trustee of the investment trust that owned the loan. Plaintiffs eventually defaulted on the loan. They filed suit against Bank of America, Specialized Loan Servicing, and Bank of New York for negligence and intentional and negligent misrepresentation. The trial court sustained Bank of America’s demurrer without leave to amend and granted Specialized and Bank of New York’s
1
motion for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiffs appeal, arguing they sufficiently pleaded their negligence cause of action and the trial court erred in denying leave to amend.1 We shall affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiffs entered into a refinance agreement with Countrywide in 2006. Countrywide lent them $564,750 secured by a deed of trust. Bank of America serviced the loan for the owner of the loan, Bank of New York until May 2012, when Bank of America transferred the servicing rights to Specialized. According to plaintiffs, in October 2009, Bank of America informed them of their possible eligibility for a Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) loan modification. Bank of America instructed plaintiffs to make three trial period payments and to submit information to qualify for a permanent loan modification. Plaintiffs made thirteen trial payments. However, Bank of America never offered them a permanent HAMP modification. While plaintiffs made these payments, Bank of America proceeded with foreclosure proceedings. In May 2012, Specialized began servicing the loan. Specialized offered no explanation as to why plaintiffs never received a final HAMP modification after completing the trial period plan between 2009 and 2010. Plaintiffs allege that while Specialized was aware they qualified for HAMP, they never asked plaintiffs to submit another application for a loan modification. In July 2015, plaintiffs filed a complaint against Bank of America, Specialized, and Bank of New York alleging negligence in connection with their loan modification request. Bank of America, Specialized, and Bank of New York demurred to the
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)