RYDSTROMLAWblog,Ca Litigation, Homeowners, HAMP, Business, Real Estate
Sunday, May 31, 2015
Thursday, April 4, 2013
West v JP Morgan Chase Appeal Quotes of Law
West v Chase, some
quotes from the Appellate Court:
“We hold that
West stated causes of action for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of
written contract, promissory estoppel, and unfair competition, and therefore
reverse the judgment on those causes of action.”
“In holding that West stated a cause of action for breach of written
contract, we agree with the analysis and interpretation of HAMP presented in
the recent opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit in Wigod v. Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A. (7th Cir. 2012) 673 F.3d 547, 556‑557 (Wigod). Core to our decision
is the court’s conclusion in Wigod, supra, 673 F.3d at page 557, that
when a borrower complies with all the terms of a TPP, and the borrower’s
representations remain true and correct, the loan servicer must offer the
borrower a permanent loan modification.
As a party to a TPP, a borrower may sue the lender or loan servicer for
its breach. (Id. at p. 559, fn. 4.)
Because West complied with all
the terms of the TPP, Chase Bank had to offer her a permanent loan
modification.” (Emphasis Added)
“The SPAs stated that servicers ‘shall perform the loan modification
. . . described in . . . the Program guidelines and
procedures issued by the Treasury . . . and . . . any
supplemental documentation, instructions, bulletins, letters, directives, or other
communications . . . issued by the Treasury.’”
““Where a borrower qualified for a HAMP loan modification, the
modification process itself consisted of two stages. After determining a borrower was eligible,
the servicer implemented a Trial Period Plan (TPP) under the new loan repayment
terms it formulated using the waterfall method.
The trial period under the TPP lasted three or more months, during which
time the lender ‘must service the mortgage loan . . . in the same
manner as it would service a loan in forbearance.’ Supplemental Directive 09‑01. After the trial period, if the borrower
complied with all terms of the TPP Agreement—including making all required
payments and providing all required documentation—and if the borrower’s
representations remained true and correct, the
servicer had to offer a permanent modification. See Supplemental Directive 09‑01 (‘If the
borrower complies with the terms and conditions of the [TPP], the loan
modification will become effective on the first day of the month following the
trial period. . . .’).”
(Fourth ellipsis & italics added, fn. omitted.)”
“Also on May 24, West made her 10th reduced payment of $1,931.86,
which Chase Bank rejected and returned to her.
“Although Chase Bank had told West no foreclosure sale had been
scheduled, her home was sold at a trustee’s sale conducted on May 26,
2010. “In violation of its promises and said letter, and HAMP rules (and
Supplemental Directives), two (2) days later, CHASE BANK secretly, sold
[West]’s home, on May 26,[]2010 during the re‑evaluation period. CHASE BANK issued letters dated May[]20,
2010, received May 24, 2010, rejecting [West]’s 10th payment
. . . , made pursuant to the continuing forbearance agreement.”
“West alleged that in reliance on the representations and Chase Bank’s
alleged concealment of the foreclosure sale, she suffered damages “including loss of mortgage payments made under
false pretenses, attorney fees, legal costs, personal injuries, pain and
suffering, anxiety, humiliation, fear, extreme emotional distress, and physical
injuries.””
“Under the allegations of the third amended
complaint, West likely would have been successful in taking legal action to
stop the sale.”
In January 2010 and again in March 2010, Chase Bank
advised West to “continue to make your trial period payments on time.” She
made all of her payments.”
[Chase argument fails] “This argument ignores Chase Bank’s obligations
under HAMP and the express and implied obligations under the Trial Plan
Agreement. When Chase Bank received
public tax dollars under the Troubled Asset Relief Program,[1] it agreed to offer TPP’s and loan
modifications under HAMP according to guidelines, procedures, instructions, and
directives issued by the Department of the Treasury. (Wigod,
supra, 673 F.3d at p. 556.) Under the United States Department of the
Treasury, HAMP Supplemental Directive 09‑01 (Apr. 6, 2009)
(Directive 09‑01), if the lender approves a TPP, and the borrower complies
with all the terms of the TPP and all of the borrower’s representations remain
true and correct, the lender must offer
a permanent loan modification. (Wigod, supra, at p. 557.)
Directive 09‑01, supra,
at page 18, states: “If the
borrower complies with the terms and conditions of the [TPP], the loan
modification will become effective on the first day of the month following the
trial period . . . .”[2] “
“Nonetheless, the defendant
bank was required to offer “some sort
of good‑faith modification to [the plaintiff] consistent with HAMP guidelines.”
“ (Ibid.) (Page 17 West)
“But such a proviso
is imposed by the United States Department of the Treasury through
Directive 09‑01, supra,
page 18 (see Wigod, supra, 673 F.3d at p. 557), and a
contract must be interpreted in a way to make it lawful (Civ. Code,
§ 1643). To
make the Trial Plan Agreement lawful, it must be interpreted to include the
proviso imposed by Directive 09‑01.
In addition, HAMP guidelines “informed the reasonable expectations of
the parties to [the Trial Plan Agreement].”
(Wigod, supra, at p. 565.)
“ (West pg 18)
“Thus, as alleged in
the third amended complaint, the Trial Plan Agreement required Chase Bank to
offer West a permanent loan modification because she had complied with the
terms of that agreement. “
Quiet Title:
“Nothing we say precludes West from seeking leave to amend to allege quiet
title based on other facts or theories. “ (West pg. 24)
Promissory Estoppel:
“West’s third amended complaint adequately alleges promissory estoppel under
these authorities.”
UCL: “We conclude
the third amended complaint stated a cause of action under the UCL based on
unfair or fraudulent practices. Liberally construed, the third amended
complaint alleged Chase Bank engaged in a practice of making TPP’s that did not comply with HAMP guidelines and the
United States Department of the Treasury directives; made misrepresentations regarding a borrower’s right and ability to
challenge the bank’s calculation of the NPV; made misrepresentations about pending foreclosure sales; and wrongfully had trustee’s sales conducted
when the borrower was in compliance with a TPP. Under
such allegations, Chase Bank engaged in unfair business practices under any of
the three definitions.”
[1] The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of
2008, title 12 United States Code section 5201 et seq., gave the
Secretary of the Treasury the power to establish the Troubled Asset Relief
Program to purchase, make, and fund commitments to purchase troubled assets
from any financial institution, on such terms and conditions as set by the
Secretary. (12 U.S.C.
§ 5211(a)(1).) The Emergency
Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 defines a “troubled asset” as a financial
instrument the purchase of which is necessary to promote financial
stability. (12 U.S.C.
§ 5202(9)(B).)
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
West v Chase Bank CA Appeal Wins HAMP Mortgage Modification Rights by Attorney Rich Rydstrom
West v JP Morgan Chase, New California HAMP Precedent West Appeal Wins HAMP Wigod Rights to Sue in Superior Court CA; Demurrer Opposition, Complaint and Appeal Brief by Attorney Rich Rydstrom
2013 News Article by Attorney Rich Rydstrom:
New California Bill of Rights may Trigger Homeowner Lawsuits with
Statutory Damages of $50,000 or Treble Actual Damages! Ca Bill of Rights Attorney Article
http://www.rydstromlaw.com/1_West_v_Chase_Appeal_OC_G046516_DECISION_3-18-13_Attorney_Richard_Rydstrom_Trial_Appeal.pdf
Monday, March 25, 2013
CA HAMP Rights
West v JP Morgan Chase, West Appeal wins CA HAMP right to sue for breach of contract, misrepresentation, unfair practice, etc.; trial mod becomes permanent mod; Trial/Appeal work by Richard Rydstrom, Esq. 1877Win4You
http://rydstromlaw.com
http://rydstromlaw.com
Saturday, March 16, 2013
HAMP violations Support State Causes of Action
9-2012 Rich Rydstrom,
Esq. upholds Complaint for Los Angeles Entertainment Photographer in OC Superior
Court for Violations of HAMP, Fraud-Mod, Unfair Business Practices, HAMP
NEGLIGENCE (Biakanja and Ansanelli), RFDCPA, Promissory Estoppel, etc. Click Here
CA New Homeowner's Bill of Rights 2013
2013 New California Homeowner’s Bill of Rights May Trigger New Borrower
Rights & Lawsuits with Damages!
2013. In California, we may have finally reached a turning point
and entered into a (short) period of enhanced borrower rights. With the advent
of the recent legislative and regulatory enactments, case law, standards,
compliance duties, and best practices, mortgage servicers, foreclosure
trustees, lender’s and its agents are now duty bound to conduct its businesses
according to uniform and objective standards.
Recent impetus to change came
from or include: HAMP (Supplemental Directives), National Mortgage Settlement
(NMS), The California Commitment (and the new Homeowner Bill of Rights), California
Foreclosure Reduction Act, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Dodd-Frank
Wall Street Reform, Consumer Protection Act, FHFA, OCC and the GSE national
servicing guidelines including FannieMae Announcement SVC-2011-08R (9/2/2011).
Note that California Trustees will start to use different Due
Diligence forms for trustees who have foreclosures with less than 175 pursuant
to California Civil Code 2923.55 (b), 2923.5(a)(2), 2923.5(e), 2924.15(a) or
more than 175 foreclosures pursuant to California Civil Code 2923.55 (c),
2923.55 (b)(2), 2923.55 (f), 2924.15(a).
Dual tracking is banned for all mortgage servicers; and can no longer
record a NOD while borrower has an application for a modification pending.
First the servicer must make a written determination that the borrower is
ineligible.
New Violations / New Private Right of Action / New Damages:
Any servicer who “engages in multiple and repeated
uncorrected violations” of this provision is liable for a civil penalty of up
to $7,500 per mortgage or deed of trust in an action by the government. If the
borrower requests a foreclosure prevention alternative, the servicer “shall
promptly establish a single point of contact and provide to the borrower one or
more direct means of communication with the single point of contact.”
If Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale is Not Recorded, then a borrower may sue to enjoin
material violations of the law.
If Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale is Recorded, then a borrower may sue for “actual economic damages” caused by the
violation – if not corrected or remedied before the trustee’s deed was
recorded. If the court finds the material violation was intentional, reckless,
or resulted from willful misconduct, the court may award the borrower treble the actual damages or statutory
damages of $50,000. A prevailing BORROWER may also be awarded reasonable
attorney fees and costs.
Provisions of HOBR sunset on January 1, 2018, and other
provisions then become effective.
It is clear from our view of these examples, that numerous
and onerous requirements are being imposed upon the industry regarding mortgage
servicing, modifications and foreclosure procedures. New best practices must be
developed in harmony with the various new requirements, and create compliance
evidence in the ordinary course of business. New best practices can be an
operational, compliance and risk mitigation tool, if the industry embraces it.
Richard Rydstrom, Esq.
Southern California Attorney
Copyright Richard Rydstrom
Southern California Attorney
Copyright Richard Rydstrom
All Rights Reserved
Articles by Attorney Rydstrom
2013 News Article:
New California Bill of Rights may Trigger Homeowner Lawsuits with
Statutory Damages of $50,000 or Treble Actual Damages!
http://www.rydstromlaw.com/html/articles.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)