Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in “HBOR”

Calif. App. Court (3rd Dist) Allows HOBR Claim for Vague Reasons for Loan Mod Denial

The Court of Appeal for the Third District of California recently affirmed in part, and reversed in part, an order granting a mortgage servicer’s motion to dismiss several causes of action brought by plaintiff borrowers for denying their requests to modify their mortgage loan. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal as to the borrowers’ counts for breach of contract, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.  However, it also held that the borrowers stated a valid cause of action under California’s Homeowner Bill of Rights, section 2923.6, and reversed as to that claim. Specifically, the appellate court concluded that the servicer’s…

Calif. App. Court (4th DCA) Rules Servicer and Investor Did Not Violate HBOR

The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, recently affirmed summary judgment awarded in favor of the mortgage servicer and loan owner defendants on the borrowers’ claims for alleged violations of the California Homeowner Bill of Rights (HBOR), finding that the defendants properly contacted the borrowers and provided them with the required foreclosure information before recording the notice of default. A copy of the opinion in Schmidt v. Citibank, N.A. is available at:  Link to Opinion. The plaintiffs (“borrowers”) obtained a loan in 2007, secured by their residence.  In 2013, the borrowers defaulted and entered into a loan modification agreement…

Calif. App. Court (3rd Dist) Holds Loan Mod Denial Letter Allowing Only 15 Days to Appeal Was ‘Material Violation’ of HBOR

The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Third Appellate District, recently held that a mortgage servicer violated California’s Homeowner Bill of Rights (HBOR), Civ. Code § 2923.6(d), when it sent a borrower a loan modification denial letter stating that the homeowner had only 15 days to appeal the denial. In so ruling, the Appellate Court held that the servicer’s denial letter was a material violation of section 2923.6, and therefore the homeowner alleged a valid cause of action for injunctive relief under section 2924.12. A copy of the opinion in Berman v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A is available…

Calif. App. Court Rejects Borrower’s HBOR ‘Dual Tracking,’ SPOC Allegations

The Court of Appeals of California, Second Appellate District, recently held that a borrower failed to state a cause of action for alleged violations of the “dual tracking” and “single point of contact” provisions of California’s Homeowners Bill of Rights (HBOR), Calif. Civ. Code, §§ 2923.6, 2923.7, because: (1) the borrower did not allege acceptance of a loan modification agreement within 14 days after receiving it; and (2) the borrower’s allegations demonstrated that the servicer assigned a customer service representative to process the loan modification application. The Court also dismissed the borrower’s allegations of lack of standing to foreclose, illegal…

Calif. App. Court (2nd Dist) Confirms No Implied Right to HBOR Injunctive Relief

The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second District, recently affirmed the denial of injunctive relief to a borrower who claimed a violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 2924(a)(6) of the California Homeowner Bill of Rights, holding that injunctive relief is only available under two specific HBOR provisions where the state legislature explicitly authorized such relief – i.e., Cal. Civ. Code §§ 2924.12(a)(1) and 2924.19(a)(1). Because the borrower’s allegations did not fall under either of those sections, the Court held that the borrower was not entitled to injunctive relief. A copy of the opinion in Lucioni v. Bank of…

California Appellate Court Holds Tender Not Required for HBOR

The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, recently reversed a trial court’s dismissal of a complaint alleging a servicer violated California’s Homeowner Bill of Rights by proceeding with a trustee’s sale when the servicer and the borrowers were allegedly exploring a loan modification. In so ruling, the Appellate Court made two key holdings: First, the Appellate Court held that a borrower does not need to tender the balance due prior to instituting a suit for alleged violation of the HBOR. Second, the Appellate Court also held that a borrower’s failure to timely provide the documents…