Saturday, January 29, 2011

California Alert: Bank Making False Promises Can Be Sued For Fraud

Date:                    01-27-2011
Case Number:      B220922
Judge:                   Mallano, P J
Court:                   California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One
                              On Appeal from Los Angeles County Superior Court, Los Angeles, CA
Plaintiff's Attorney:       Dennis Moore; Nick A. Alden for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Defendant's Attorney:    Brooks Bauer, Michael R. Brooks and Bruce T. Bauer
                                         for Defendant and Respondent
Description: As alleged in this case, plaintiff, Claudia Jacqueline Aceves, a married woman, obtained in 2006 a 30 year $845,000 adjustable rate loan from U. S. Bank, N. A., to purchase real property secured by a deed of trust on her residence. About two years into the loan, she could not afford the monthly payments and filed for bankruptcy under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. §§ 701–784). She intended to convert the chapter 7 proceeding to a chapter 13 proceeding (11 U.S.C. §§ 1301–1330) and to enlist the financial assistance of her husband to reinstate the loan, pay the arrearages, and resume the regular loan payments. Plaintiff contacted the bank, which promised to work with her on a loan reinstatement and modification if she would forgo further bankruptcy proceedings. In reliance on that promise, plaintiff did not convert her bankruptcy case to a chapter 13 proceeding or oppose the bank‘s motion to lift the bankruptcy stay. While the bank was promising to work with plaintiff, it was simultaneously complying with the notice requirements to conduct a sale under the power of sale in the deed of trust, commonly referred to as a nonjudicial foreclosure or foreclosure. (See Civ. Code, §§ 2924, 2924a–2924k.)

The bankruptcy court lifted the stay. But U. S. Bank, N. A. did not work with plaintiff Aceves in an attempt to reinstate and modify the loan. Five days after Aceves dropped her bankruptcy case in December 2008, Aceves said, U. S. Bank without contacting her, scheduled her home for public auction a month later.  She further stated that the bank's loan service called her attorney the day before the sale and orally proposed a new loan with high payments.  

U. S. Bank, N. A. bought Aceves' home at the foreclosure auction and filed an eviction notice two months later.

A California Superior Court judge had dismissed Aceves' suit against the bank but it was revived by the California Court of Appeals, which said a lender who falsely promises to help a homeowner prevent foreclosure can be sued for fraud.

U. S. Bank, N. A. argued that Aceves acted in bad faith by seeking refuge from foreclosure in bankruptcy proceedings.  The Court of Appeals said that a Chapter 13 bankruptcy filing is a legitimate way for a borrower to reinstate a home loan and does not violate the lender's rights.  Because a bankruptcy judge can't modify a long term mortgage by reducing the payments or extending the life of the loan, the court said, Aceves had a reason to rely on the bank's offer to negotiate more favorable terms.        

Plaintiff filed this action against the bank, alleging a cause of action for promissory estoppel, among others. She argued the bank‘s promise to work with her in reinstating and modifying the loan was enforceable, she had relied on the promise by forgoing bankruptcy protection under chapter 13, and the bank subsequently breached its promise by foreclosing. The trial court dismissed the case on demurrer.

The California Court of Appeals, 2nd District, concluded (1) plaintiff could have reasonably relied on the bank‘s promise to work on a loan reinstatement and modification if she did not seek relief under chapter 13, (2) the promise was sufficiently concrete to be enforceable, and (3) plaintiff‘s decision to forgo chapter 13 relief was detrimental because it allowed the bank to foreclose on the property. Contrary to the bank‘s contention that plaintiff‘s use of the Bankruptcy Code was ipso facto bad faith, chapter 13 is ―‗uniquely tailored to protect homeowners‘ primary residences [from foreclosure].‘‖ (In re Willette (Bankr. D.Vt. 2008) 395 B.R. 308, 322.)

To learn more go to:
The facts of this case are taken from the allegations of the operative complaint, which we accept as true. (See Hensler v. City of Glendale (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1, 8, fn. 3.)

A. Complaint

This action was filed on April 1, 2009. Two months later, a first amended complaint was filed. On August 17, 2009, after the sustaining of a demurrer, a second amended complaint (complaint) was filed. The complaint alleged as follows. Plaintiff Claudia Aceves, an unmarried woman, obtained a loan from Option One Mortgage Corporation (Option One) on April 20, 2006. The loan was evidenced by a note secured by a deed of trust on Aceves‘s residence. Aceves borrowed $845,000 at an initial rate of 6.35 percent. After two years, the rate became adjustable. The term of the loan was 30 years. Aceves‘s initial monthly payments were $4,857.09.

On March 25, 2008, Option One transferred its entire interest under the deed of trust to defendant U.S. Bank, National Association, as the ―Trustee for the Certificateholders of Asset Backed Securities Corporation Home Equity Loan Trust, Series OOMC 2006-HE5‖ (U.S. Bank). The transfer was effected through an ―Assignment of Deed of Trust.‖ U.S. Bank therefore became Option One‘s assignee and the beneficiary of the deed of trust. Also on March 25, 2008, U.S. Bank, by way of a ―Substitution of Trustee,‖ designated Quality Loan Service Corporation (Quality Loan Service) as the trustee under the deed of trust. The Substitution of Trustee was signed by the bank‘s attorney-in-fact.

In January 2008, Aceves could no longer afford the monthly payments on the loan. On March 26, 2008, Quality Loan Service recorded a ―Notice of Default and Election to Sell Under Deed of Trust.‖ (See Civ. Code, § 2924.) Shortly thereafter, Aceves filed for bankruptcy protection under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. §§ 701–784), imposing an automatic stay on the foreclosure proceedings (see 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)). Aceves contacted U.S. Bank and was told that, once her loan was out of bankruptcy, the bank ―would work with her on a mortgage reinstatement and loan modification.‖ She was asked to submit documents to U.S. Bank for its consideration.

Aceves intended to convert her chapter 7 bankruptcy case to a chapter 13 case (see 11 U.S.C. §§ 1301–1330) and to rely on the financial resources of her husband ―to save her home‖ under chapter 13. In general, chapter 7, entitled ―Liquidation,‖ permits a debtor to discharge unpaid debts, but a debtor who discharges an unpaid home loan cannot keep the home; chapter 13, entitled ―Adjustment of Debts of an Individual with Regular Income,‖ allows a homeowner in default to reinstate the original loan payments, pay the arrearages over time, avoid foreclosure, and retain the home. (See 1 Collier on Bankruptcy (16th ed. 2010) ¶¶ 1.07[1][a] to 1.07[1][g], 1.07[5][a] to 1.07[5][e], pp. 1-25 to 1-30, 1-43 to 1-45.)

U.S. Bank filed a motion in the bankruptcy court to lift the stay so it could proceed with a nonjudicial foreclosure. On or about November 12, 2008, Aceves‘s bankruptcy attorney received a letter from counsel for the company servicing the loan, American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. (American Home). The letter requested that Aceves‘s attorney agree in writing to allow American Home to contact Aceves directly to ―explore Loss Mitigation possibilities.‖ Thereafter, Aceves contacted American Home‘s counsel and was told they could not speak to her before the motion to lift the bankruptcy stay had been granted.

In reliance on U.S. Bank‘s promise to work with her to reinstate and modify the loan, Aceves did not oppose the motion to lift the bankruptcy stay and decided not to seek bankruptcy relief under chapter 13. On December 4, 2008, the bankruptcy court lifted the stay. On December 9, 2008, although neither U.S. Bank nor American Home had contacted Aceves to discuss the reinstatement and modification of the loan, U.S. Bank scheduled Aceves‘s home for public auction on January 9, 2009.

On December 10, 2008, Aceves sent documents to American Home related to reinstating and modifying the loan. On December 23, 2008, American Home informed Aceves that a ―negotiator‖ would contact her on or before January 13, 2009 — four days after the auction of her residence. On December 29, 2008, Aceves received a telephone call from ―Samantha,‖ a negotiator from American Home. Samantha said to forget about any assistance in avoiding foreclosure because the ―file‖ had been ―discharged‖ in bankruptcy. On January 2, 2009, Samantha contacted Aceves again, saying that American Home had mistakenly decided not to offer her any assistance: American Home incorrectly thought Aceves‘s loan had been discharged in bankruptcy; instead, Aceves had merely filed for bankruptcy. Samantha said that, as a result of American Home‘s mistake, it would reconsider a loss mitigation proposal. On January 8, 2009, the day before the auction, Samantha called Aceves‘s bankruptcy attorney and stated that the new balance on the loan was $965,926.22; the new monthly payment would be more than $7,200; and a $6,500 deposit was due immediately via Western Union. Samantha refused to put any of those terms in writing. Aceves did not accept the offer.

On January 9, 2009, Aceves‘s home was sold at a trustee‘s sale to U.S. Bank. On February 11, 2009, U.S. Bank served Aceves with a three-day notice to vacate the premises and, a month later, filed an unlawful detainer action against her and her husband (U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Aceves (Super. Ct. L.A. County, 2009, No. 09H00857)). Apparently, Aceves and her husband vacated the premises during the eviction proceedings.

U.S. Bank never intended to work with Aceves to reinstate and modify the loan. The bank so promised only to convince Aceves to forgo further bankruptcy proceedings, thereby permitting the bank to lift the automatic stay and foreclose on the property.

The complaint alleged causes of action against U.S. Bank for quiet title, slander of title, fraud, promissory estoppel, and declaratory relief. It also sought to set aside the trustee‘s sale and to void the trustee‘s deed upon the sale of the home.

B. Demurrer

U.S. Bank filed a demurrer separately attacking each cause of action and the requested remedies. Aceves filed opposition.

At the hearing on the demurrer, Aceves‘s attorney argued that Aceves and her husband ―could have saved their house through bankruptcy,‖ but ―due to the promises of the bank, they didn‘t go those routes to save their house. [¶] . . . [¶] . . . [T]hat‘s the whole essence of promissory estoppel. [¶] . . . [¶] Prior to [American Home‘s November 12, 2008] letter, there‘s numerous phone contacts and conversations with [American Home], which was the agent for U.S. Bank, regarding, ‗Yes, once we get leave, we will work with you, . . . and they did not work with her at all.‘‖ The trial court replied: ―The foreclosure took place. There‘s no promissory fraud or anything that deluded [Aceves] under the circumstances.‖

On October 29, 2009, the trial court entered an order sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend and a judgment in favor of U.S. Bank. Aceves filed this appeal.


Aceves focuses primarily on her claim for promissory estoppel, arguing it is adequately pleaded. She also contends her other claims should have survived the demurrer. U.S. Bank counters that the trial court properly dismissed the case. We conclude Aceves stated a claim for promissory estoppel. As alleged, in reliance on a promise by U.S. Bank to work with her in reinstating and modifying the loan, Aceves did not attempt to save her home under chapter 13. Yet U.S. Bank then went forward with the foreclosure and did not commence negotiations toward a possible loan solution. As demonstrated in its brief on appeal, U.S. Bank fails to appreciate that chapter 13 may be used legitimately to assist a borrower in reinstating a home loan and avoiding foreclosure after a default.

All but one of Aceves‘s remaining claims were properly dismissed. She adequately pleaded a claim for fraud. But the record does not support her other claims or requests for relief: The complaint does not allege any irregularities in the foreclosure process that would permit the trial court to void the deed of sale or otherwise invalidate the foreclosure.

A. Promissory Estoppel

―‗The elements of a promissory estoppel claim are ―(1) a promise clear and unambiguous in its terms; (2) reliance by the party to whom the promise is made; (3) [the] reliance must be both reasonable and foreseeable; and (4) the party asserting the estoppel must be injured by his reliance.‖ . . .‘‖ (Advanced Choices, Inc. v. State Dept. of Health Services (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1661, 1672.)

1. Clear and Unambiguous Promise ―‗[A] promise is an indispensable element of the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The cases are uniform in holding that this doctrine cannot be invoked and must be held inapplicable in the absence of a showing that a promise had been made upon which the complaining party relied to his prejudice . . . .‘ . . . The promise must, in addition, be ‗clear and unambiguous in its terms.‘‖ (Garcia v. World Savings, FSB (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1031, 1044, citation omitted.) ―To be enforceable, a promise need only be ‗―definite enough that a court can determine the scope of the duty[,] and the limits of performance must be sufficiently defined to provide a rational basis for the assessment of damages.‖‘ . . . It is only where ‗―a supposed ‗contract‘ does not provide a basis for determining what obligations the parties have agreed to, and hence does not make possible a determination of whether those agreed obligations have been breached, [that] there is no contract.‖‘‖ (Id. at p. 1045, citation omitted.) ―[T]hat a promise is conditional does not render it unenforceable or ambiguous.‖ (Ibid.) U.S. Bank agreed to ―work with [Aceves] on a mortgage reinstatement and loan modification‖ if she no longer pursued relief in the bankruptcy court. This is a clear and unambiguous promise. It indicates that U.S. Bank would not foreclose on Aceves‘s home without first engaging in negotiations with her to reinstate and modify the loan on mutually agreeable terms.

U.S. Bank‘s discussion of Laks v. Coast Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. (1976) 60 Cal.App.3d 885 misses the mark. There, the plaintiffs applied for a loan and relied on promissory estoppel in arguing that the lender was bound to make the loan. The Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of the case on demurrer, explaining that the alleged promise to make a loan was unclear and ambiguous because it did not include all of the essential terms of a loan, including the identity of the borrower and the security for the loan. In contrast, Aceves contends U.S. Bank promised but failed to engage in negotiations toward a solution of her loan problems. Thus, the question here is simply whether U.S. Bank made and kept a promise to negotiate with Aceves, not whether, as in Laks, the bank promised to make a loan or, more precisely, to modify a loan. Aceves does not, and could not, assert she relied on the terms of a modified loan agreement in forgoing bankruptcy relief. She acknowledges that the parties never got that far because U.S. Bank broke its promise to negotiate with her in an attempt to reach a mutually agreeable modification.

While Laks turned on the sufficiency of the terms of a loan, Aceves‘s claim rests on whether U.S. Bank engaged in the promised negotiations. The bank either did or did not negotiate.

Further, U.S. Bank asserts that it offered Aceves a loan modification, referring to the offer it made the day before the auction. That assertion, however, is of no avail. Aceves‘s promissory estoppel claim is not based on a promise to make a unilateral offer but on a promise to negotiate in an attempt to reach a mutually agreeable loan modification. And, even assuming this case involved a mere promise to make a unilateral offer, we cannot say the bank‘s offer satisfied such a promise in light of the offer‘s terms and the circumstances under which it was made.

2. Reliance on the Promise

Aceves relied on U.S. Bank‘s promise by declining to convert her chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding to a chapter 13 proceeding, by not relying on her husband‘s financial assistance in developing a chapter 13 plan, and by not opposing U.S. Bank‘s motion to lift the bankruptcy stay.

3. Reasonable and Foreseeable Reliance

―‗Promissory estoppel applies whenever a ―promise which the promissor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person and which does induce such action or forbearance‖ would result in an ―injustice‖ if the promise were not enforced. . . .‘‖ (Advanced Choices, Inc. v. State Dept. of Health Services, supra, 182 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1671–1672, citation omitted, italics added.) ―[A] party plaintiff‘s misguided belief or guileless action in relying on a statement on which no reasonable person would rely is not justifiable reliance. . . . ‗If the conduct of the plaintiff in the light of his own intelligence and information was manifestly unreasonable, . . . he will be denied a recovery.‘‖ (Kruse v. Bank of America (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 38, 54, citation omitted.) A mere ―hopeful expectation[] cannot be equated with the necessary justifiable reliance.‖ (Id. at p. 55.) We conclude Aceves reasonably relied on U.S. Bank‘s promise; U.S. Bank reasonably expected her to so rely; and it was foreseeable she would do so. U.S. Bank promised to work with Aceves to reinstate and modify the loan. That would have been more beneficial to Aceves than the relief she could have obtained under chapter 13. The bankruptcy court could have reinstated the loan — permitted Aceves to cure the default, pay the arrearages, and resume regular loan payments — but it could not have modified the terms of the loan, for example, by reducing the amount of the regular monthly payments or extending the life of the loan. (See 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2), (3), (5), (c)(1); 8 Collier on Bankruptcy, supra, ¶¶ 1322.06[1], 1322.07[2], 1322.09[1]–[6], 1322.16 & fn. 5, pp. 23–24, 31–32, 34–42, 55–56.) By promising to work with Aceves to modify the loan in addition to reinstating it, U.S. Bank presented Aceves with a compelling reason to opt for negotiations with the bank instead of seeking bankruptcy relief. (See Garcia v. World Savings, FSB, supra, 183 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1041–1042 [discussing justifiable reliance].)

We emphasize that this case involves a long-term loan secured by a deed of trust, one in which the last payment under the loan schedule would be due after the final payment under a bankruptcy plan. (See 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(5).) Aceves had more than 28 years left on the loan, and a bankruptcy plan could not have exceeded five years. In contrast, if a case involves a short-term loan, where the last payment under the original loan schedule is due before the final payment under the bankruptcy plan, the bankruptcy court has the authority to modify the terms of the loan. (See 11 U.S.C. § 1322(c)(2); In re Paschen (11th Cir. 2002) 296 F.3d 1203, 1205–1209; 8 Collier on Bankruptcy, supra, ¶ 1322.17, pp. 57–58; March et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Bankruptcy (The Rutter Group 2010) ¶ 13:396, p. 13-45; compare id. ¶¶ 13:385 to 13:419, pp. 13-42 to 13-48 [discussing short-term debts] with id. ¶¶ 13:440 to 13:484, pp. 13-49 to 13-54 [discussing long-term debts].) The modification of a short-term loan may include ―lienstripping,‖ that is, the bifurcation of the loan into secured and unsecured components based on the value of the home, with the unsecured component subject to a ―cramdown.‖ (See In re Paschen, supra, 296 F.3d at pp. 1205–1209; 8 Collier on Bankruptcy, supra, ¶ 1322.17, pp. 57–58; see also March et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Bankruptcy, supra, ¶¶ 13:370 to 13:371.1, p. 13-41 [discussing lienstripping].) If a lien is ―stripped down,‖ the lender is ―only assured of receiving full [payment] for the secured portion of the [bankruptcy] claim.‖ (In re Paschen, supra, 296 F.3d at p. 1206.)

4. Detriment

U.S. Bank makes no attempt to hide its disdain for the protections offered homeowners by chapter 13, referring disparagingly to Aceves‘s bankruptcy case as ―bad faith.‖ But ―Chapter 13‘s greatest significance for debtors is its use as a weapon to avoid foreclosure on their homes. Restricting initial . . . access to Chapter 13 protection will increase foreclosure rates for financially distressed homeowners. Loss of homes hurts not only the individual homeowner but also the family, the neighborhood and the community at large. Preserving access to Chapter 13 will reduce this harm.

―Chapter 13 bankruptcies do not result in destruction of the interests of traditional mortgage lenders. Under Chapter 13, a debtor cannot discharge a mortgage debt and keep her home. Rather, a Chapter 13 bankruptcy offers the debtor an opportunity to cure a mortgage delinquency over time — in essence it is a statutorily mandated payment plan — but one that requires the debtor to pay precisely the amount she would have to pay to the lender outside of bankruptcy. Under Chapter 13, the plan must provide the amount necessary to cure the mortgage default, which includes the fees and costs allowed by the mortgage agreement and by state law. Mortgage lenders who are secured only by an interest in the debtor‘s residence enjoy even greater protection under 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2) . . . . Known as the ‗anti-modification provision,‘ [section] 1322(b)(2) bars a debtor from modifying any rights of such a lender — including the payment schedule provided for under the loan contract. . . . [Cf. 11 U.S.C. § 1322(c)(2) [bankruptcy court has authority to modify rights of lender, including payment schedule, in cases involving short-term mortgages]; see pt. II.A.3, ante.]

―Even though a debtor must, through reinstatement of her delinquent mortgage by a Chapter 13 repayment plan . . . , pay her full obligation to the lender, Chapter 13 remains the only viable way for most mortgage debtors to cure defaults and save their homes. Mortgage lenders are extraordinarily unwilling to accept repayment schedules outside of bankruptcy. . . . There is no history to support any claim that lenders will accommodate the need for extended workouts without the pressure of bankruptcy as an option for consumer debtors. Reducing the availability of [C]hapter 13 protection to mortgage debtors is most likely to result in higher foreclosure rates, not in greater flexibility by lenders.‖ (DeJarnatt, Once Is Not Enough: Preserving Consumers’ Rights To Bankruptcy Protection (Spring 1999) Ind. L.J. 455, 495–496, fn. omitted.)

―It is unrealistic to think mortgage companies will do workouts without the threat of the debtor‘s access to Chapter 13 protection. The bankruptcy process is still very protective of the mortgage industry. To the extent that the existence of Chapter 13 protections increases the costs of mortgage financing to all consumers, it can and should be viewed as an essential form of consumer insurance . . . .‖ (DeJarnatt, Once Is Not Enough: Preserving Consumers’ Rights To Bankruptcy Protection, supra, Ind. L.J. at p. 499, fn. omitted.)

We mention just a few of the rights Aceves sacrificed by deciding to forgo a chapter 13 proceeding. First, although Aceves initially filed a chapter 7 proceeding, ―a chapter 7 debtor may convert to a case[] under chapter []13 at any time without court approval, so long as the debtor is eligible for relief under the new chapter.‖ (1 Collier on Bankruptcy, supra, ¶ 1.06, p. 24, italics added; accord, March et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Bankruptcy, supra, ¶¶ 5:1700 to 5:1701, 5:1715 to 5:1731, pp. 5(II)-1, 5(II)-3 to 5(II)-5; see 11 U.S.C. § 706(a).) In addition, Aceves could have ―cured‖ the default, reinstating the loan to predefault conditions. (See In re Frazer (Bankr. 9th Cir. 2007) 377 B.R. 621, 628; In re Taddeo (2d Cir. 1982) 685 F.2d 24, 26–28; 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(5); March et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Bankruptcy, supra, ¶ 13:450, p. 13-50.) She also would have had a ―reasonable time‖ — a maximum of five years — to make up the arrearages. (See 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(5), (d); 8 Collier on Bankruptcy, supra, ¶ 1322.09[5], pp. 39–40; March et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Bankruptcy, supra, ¶ 13:443, p. 13-49.) And, by complying with a bankruptcy plan, Aceves could have prevented U.S. Bank from foreclosing on the property. (See 8 Collier on Bankruptcy, supra, ¶¶ 1322.09[1] to 1322.09[3], 1322.16, pp. 34–37, 55–56.) ―‗―Indeed, the bottom line of most Chapter 13 cases is to preserve and avoid foreclosure of the family house.‖‘‖ (In re King (Bankr. N.D.Fla. 1991) 131 B.R. 207, 211; see also March et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Bankruptcy, supra, ¶¶ 8:1050, 8:1375 to 8:1411, pp. 8(II)-1, 8(II)-42 to 8(II)-47 [discussing automatic stay]; In re Hoggle (11th Cir. 1994) 12 F.3d 1008, 1008–1012 [affirming district court order denying lender‘s motion for relief from automatic stay]; Lamarche v. Miles (E.D.N.Y. 2009) 416 B.R. 53, 55–62 [affirming bankruptcy court order denying landlord‘s motion to set aside automatic stay]; In re Gatlin (Bankr. W.D.Ark. 2006) 357 B.R. 519, 520–523 [denying lender‘s motion for relief from automatic stay].)

U.S. Bank maintains that even if Aceves had pursued relief under chapter 13, she could not have afforded the payments under a bankruptcy plan. But the complaint alleged that, with the financial assistance of her husband, Aceves could have saved her home under chapter 13. We accept the truth of Aceves‘s allegations over U.S. Bank‘s speculation. (See Hensler v. City of Glendale, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 8, fn. 3.)

5. Absence of Consideration

U.S. Bank argues that an oral promise to postpone either a loan payment or a foreclosure is unenforceable. We have previously addressed that argument, stating: ―‗[I]n the absence of consideration, a gratuitous oral promise to postpone a sale of property pursuant to the terms of a trust deed ordinarily would be unenforceable under [Civil Code] section 1698.‘ (Raedeke v. Gibraltar Sav. & Loan Assn. (1974) 10 Cal.3d 665, 673, italics added.) The same holds true for an oral promise to allow the postponement of mortgage payments. (California Securities Co. v. Grosse (1935) 3 Cal.2d 732, 733 [applying Civil Code section 1698].) However, ‗. . . the doctrine of promissory estoppel is used to provide a substitute for the consideration which ordinarily is required to create an enforceable promise. . . . ―The purpose of this doctrine is to make a promise binding, under certain circumstances, without consideration in the usual sense of something bargained for and given in exchange. . . .‖‘ (Raedeke, supra, 10 Cal.3d at p. 672.) ‗―Under this doctrine a promisor is bound when he should reasonably expect a substantial change of position, either by act or forbearance, in reliance on his promise, if injustice can be avoided only by its enforcement. . . .‖‘‖ (Sutherland v. Barclays American/Mortgage Corp. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 299, 312; accord, Garcia v. World Savings, FSB, supra, 183 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1039–1041.) We further commented: ―When Raedeke and California Securities Co. were decided, Civil Code section 1698 provided in its entirety: ‗A contract in writing may be altered by a contract in writing, or by an executed oral agreement, and not otherwise.‘ . . . In 1976, a new section 1698 was enacted which states in part: ‗A contract in writing may be modified by a contract in writing . . . [or] by an oral agreement to the extent that the oral agreement is executed by the parties. . . . Nothing in this section precludes in an appropriate case the application of rules of law concerning estoppel . . . .‘‖ (Sutherland v. Barclays American/Mortgage Corp., supra, 53 Cal.App.4th at p. 312, fn. 8, citations omitted.) Our earlier analysis in Sutherland applies here.

Finally, a promissory estoppel claim generally entitles a plaintiff to the damages available on a breach of contract claim. (See Toscano v. Greene Music (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 685, 692–693.) Because this is not a case where the homeowner paid the funds needed to reinstate the loan before the foreclosure, promissory estoppel does not provide a basis for voiding the deed of sale or otherwise invalidating the foreclosure. (See Garcia v. World Savings, FSB, supra, 183 Cal.App.4th at p. 1047, distinguishing Bank of America v. La Jolla Group II (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 706, 711–714.)

B. Remaining Claims

The elements of fraud are similar to the elements of promissory estoppel, with the additional requirements that a false promise be made and that the promisor know of the falsity when making the promise. (See McClain v. Octagon Plaza, LLC (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 784, 792–794 [discussing elements of fraud].) Aceves has adequately alleged those facts. Aceves‘s other claims and requests for relief lack merit as a matter of law. All of them are based on alleged irregularities in the foreclosure process. We see no irregularities that would justify relief. For example, Aceves contends U.S. Bank‘s designation of Quality Loan Service as the trustee under the deed of trust was defective because the ―Substitution of Trustee‖ was signed by the bank‘s attorney-in-fact. But Aceves cites no pertinent authority for her contention. (See Schoendorf v. U.D. Registry, Inc. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 227, 237–238 [party forfeits contention absent citation of authority].)

Neither Civil Code section 2934a, which governs the substitution of trustees, nor the trust deed itself precludes an attorney-in-fact from signing a Substitution of Trustee. And case law strongly suggests Aceves is wrong. (See Tran v. Farmers Group, Inc. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1202, 1213 [―an attorney-in-fact is an agent owing a fiduciary duty to the principal‖]; Burgess v. Security-First Nat. Bank (1941) 44 Cal.App.2d 808, 818–819 [person can perform any legal act through attorney-in-fact that he or she could perform in person, including entering into contracts].)

Aceves also takes issue with the notice of default, pointing out that it mistakenly identified Option One as the beneficiary under the deed of trust when U.S. Bank was actually the beneficiary. Although this contention is factually correct, it is of no legal consequence. Aceves did not suffer any prejudice as a result of the error. Nor could she. The notice instructed Aceves to contact Quality Loan Service, the trustee, not Option One, if she wanted ―[t]o find out the amount you must pay, or arrange for payment to stop the foreclosure, or if your property is in foreclosure for any other reason.‖ The notice also included the address and telephone number for Quality Loan Service, not Option One. Absent prejudice, the error does not warrant relief. (See Knapp v. Doherty (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 76, 93–94 & fn. 9.) Last, after the filing of the reply brief and before oral argument, we requested additional briefing on the protections accorded by chapter 13. In her letter brief, Aceves went beyond the scope of the request and presented arguments not previously made about the order in which various documents were recorded. The new arguments were unsolicited; Aceves did not explain why the arguments were not raised earlier; and U.S. Bank had no opportunity to respond. Accordingly, we do not reach them. (See City of Costa Mesa v. Connell (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 188, 197; Campos v. Anderson (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 784, 794, fn. 3.)

It follows that the trial court properly sustained the demurrer without leave to amend with respect to all claims and requests for relief other than the claims for promissory estoppel and fraud. Aceves should be allowed to pursue those two claims.


Outcome: The order and the judgment are reversed to the extent they dismissed the claims for promissory estoppel and fraud. In all other respects, the order and judgment are affirmed. Appellant is entitled to costs on appeal.

Certified for Publication
Mallano,  P. J.
We concur
Rothchild, J
Johnson, J 

See article in the San Francisco Chronicle 1/29/2011 

Friday, January 28, 2011

Problems with foreclosure mediation leads to complaints - St. Petersburg Times

Problems with foreclosure mediation leads to complaints - St. Petersburg Times

A BILL To Terminate the Home Affordable Modification Program of the Department of the Treasury « Foreclosure Fraud – Fighting Foreclosure Fraud by Sharing the Knowledge

A BILL To Terminate the Home Affordable Modification Program of the Department of the Treasury « Foreclosure Fraud – Fighting Foreclosure Fraud by Sharing the Knowledge

Dexia Holding v Countrywide and the Sub-prime Crisis - the Scope of the Fraud May Begin to Unfold - Los Angeles Business Headlines |

Dexia Holding v Countrywide and the Sub-prime Crisis - the Scope of the Fraud May Begin to Unfold - Los Angeles Business Headlines |

Davos diss: JP Morgan head Jamie Dimon gets public smackdown from French President Nicolas Sarkozy

Davos diss: JP Morgan head Jamie Dimon gets public smackdown from French President Nicolas Sarkozy

Tuesday, January 25, 2011


Foreclosed Home in Oakland, CA 94602
Between today and end of business on February 3rd 2011, in the city of Oakland, California, one-hundred-ninety-nine (199) homes are scheduled to be sold on the County Courthouse steps on Fallon Street in Oakland.

California Reconveyance Company, Trustee for WAMU in California, Nevada, and Arizona will seize seven (7) homes of the 199 going to auction.  The following week California Reconveyance will seize two homes in my immediate zip code, 94618.

WAMU's last scheduled foreclosure sale date on my home was in October 2010.  On September 30, 2010 all information on my foreclosure sale vanished from the website LPS Agency Sales and Posting.  I telephoned the Trustee, California Reconveyance Company in Chatsworth, California to find out my status and the representative said the sale was "on hold" and to contact JPMorgan Chase.  I telephoned JPMorgan Chase and was told the sale was "indefinitely placed on hold."  To date no new sale date has been posted for which I am deeply grateful.  I still have a pending modification application through NACA that has been in the works since October 7th, 2010, with numerous requests for updated documents, all with which I have complied.  Needless to say I check the LPS Agency website daily as do others in my community.

Likewise on September 30, 2010  Jane, a resident of Contra Costa County with a WAMU foreclosure action pending, also noted that all data relative to her sale through Trustee, California Reconveyance Company, had also disappeared from their other website  Likewise nothing more has been published.

We are grateful for this respite from the storm, however what does it mean?  With California Reconveyance rearing it's ugly head in Oakland again, one really has to wonder and be ever vigilant.

Last month 1,000 brand new Notices of Default were filed in Alameda County, California. Over 1,800 other homeowners are in some stage of the foreclosure process in this county.  We have fallen prey to the banks and their treacherous ways.

Attorney General Kamila Harris
California Attorney General Kamila Harris appears to be just another pretty face.  She is NOT living into her campaign promises to California homeowners to do all she could to stop foreclosures.  What her office does do is send a meaningless form letter response to inquiries. In her own words this is the promise she made, now being broken now that she is in office:
 “Protecting homeowners will be one of my top priorities as California Attorney General” said nominee Harris. “Building off the work of Attorney General Brown, I will push for tough legislation to hold predators accountable and bring relief to desperate homeowners.”


Telephone your California Assembly Representative immediately and often.  You may find the contact information by going to  Likewise contact Assemblyman Mike Davis at 916-319-2047.  Convey to your Assembly Member that Kamila Harris, Attorney General, MUST DO MORE TO STOP FORECLOSURES IN CALIFORNIA and keep her promise to protect homeowners.  Make a case for your district and why you need action to SAVE OUR HOMES.

Meanwhile, let us pray for the 199 homeowners in Oakland and the thousands in cities all across every state in America.  Let us pray; let us act; let us move our feet!

Sunday, January 23, 2011


Subject: Hawaiian Attorney takes the non-judicial foreclosure- due process violation question to the US Supreme Court

"Due Process Questions
USSC re non-judicial foreclosure" on Scribd

From an Hawaii attorney:

Yes, every bit of media exposure will help. This is the first real chance in 100 years for the United States Supreme Court to do something about non-judicial foreclosures.  Gary

Gary Victor Dubin, Esq
Dubin Law Offices
Harbor Court, Suite 3100
55 Merchant Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
(808) 537-2300 (office)
(808) 392-9191 (cellular)
(808) 523-7733 (facsimile)
Let's throw some support to Gary Victor Dubin in Honolulu and praise him for his courage and tenacity.  Thank you to Gary Dubin!!!

Response to Inquiry with Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, California

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, CA
Recently I contacted the Public Inquiry Unit for the Office of the Attorney General for the state of California regarding questions about foreclosures on properties by WAMU and JPMorgan Chase, NA.  I posed a question as to the current status for foreclosures in California online:

On January 15, 2011 Melissa Weikel, Public Inquiry Unit, responded for Kamala D. Harris, our new Attorney General.

Ms. Weikel writes:

"As you may already know the Attorney General has joined a 50-state, industry-wide investigation into the manner in which lenders and loan services conduct foreclosures.  We will review the information you have provided as part of our investigation and unless you have requested confidentiality, we may share your letter with your lender or loan servicer."


"Additionally, the Attorney General has called on lenders and loan servicers to halt foreclosures during the investigation.  However, some lenders and loan services are still conducting foreclosures.  Therefore if your loan is in the foreclosure process, please do not assume that your foreclosure is on hold.  Unless you have been specifically advised otherwise in writing by your lender or loan servicer, you should assume that the foreclosure process is continuing for your loan.

"Please be advised our office cannot represent individual citizens in legal matters, and cannot give individuals legal advice.  If you need legal assistance, we suggest that you consult a private attorney.  You may obtain a referral to a certified lawyer referral service by contacting the State Bar at 866-442-2529 (toll free in California) or 415-538-2250 (from outside California) or via their website at:

"If you cannot afford a private attorney, you may wish to contact your local legal aid office.  For a referral please go to and click on Find Legal Assistance Tab.

"Because your complaint is against a financial institution that is regulated or supervised by the following government agency, we suggest you also file a complaint at the following address and/or website:

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
Customer Assistance Group
1301 McKinney Street, Suite 3450
Houston, TX 77010-9050
Telephone: 1-800-613-6743

As an aside, I personally filed numerous complaints against JPMC and WAMU with the OCC with nothing resolved.  The OCC sends consumer complaints directly to JPMC which then has a JPMC employee self-investigate the consumer's complaint.  I am not saying to not complain to the OCC.  Quite the contrary if you send the OCC a complaint, sent a photocopy and over letter also to Senator Diane Feinstein and Senator Barbara Boxer, along with your California member of the House of Representatives.  We have to fight fire with fire and make sure that everyone possible has an awareness of the challenges we have and are facing.

Readers, if you have not already filed a complaint with the Attorney General's Office, let me encourage you to do so.  The most efficient way is through the internet at the following AG website:

If you have questions about signatures on foreclosure documents, let me encourage you to submit your concerns and documentation to Kamila Harris' office.  We MUST let the AG know what is really going on here.

Mailing Address
Attorney General’s Office
California Department of Justice
Attn: Public Inquiry Unit
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

Public Inquiry Unit
Voice: (916) 322-3360 or
(Toll-free in California)
(800) 952-5225
Fax: (916) 323-5341

California Relay Service:
(For Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Callers)
TTY/TDD Dial 711 or
English: TTY/TDD (800) 735-2929
Spanish: TTY/TDD (800) 855-3000
Voice: (800) 735-2922

Congressional Hearing on TARP Oversight Committee October 10, 2010

 If you have not checked out the testimony of Katherine Porter before the Congressional Oversight Committee, I encourage you to do so at clicking 

Thursday, January 20, 2011

Stockton Real Estate Executive Pleads Guilty to Bid Rigging at Auctions of Foreclosed Properties

Department of Justice Press Release

For Immediate Release
April 16, 2010
United States Attorney's Office 
Eastern District of California
Contact: (916) 554-2700
Stockton Real Estate Executive Pleads Guilty to Bid Rigging at Auctions of Foreclosed Properties
SACRAMENTO, CA  United States Attorney Benjamin B. Wagner and Assistant Attorney General Christine Varney of the Department of Justices Antitrust Division announced today that Anthony B. Ghio, 43, of Stockton, pleaded guilty today before United States District Judge Edward J. Garcia to conspiring to rig bids at public real estate foreclosure auctions held in San Joaquin County.
These charges arose from an ongoing federal antitrust investigation of fraud and bidding irregularities in certain real estate auctions in San Joaquin County. The investigation is being conducted by the U.S. Attorneys Office for the Eastern District of California, the Antitrust Divisions San Francisco Office, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the San Joaquin County District Attorneys Office.
According to Assistant United States Attorneys Robin R. Taylor and Russell L. Carlberg, who are prosecuting the case with assistance from Barbara Nelson and Richard Cohen of the Antitrust Division, Ghio admitted in his guilty plea that he conspired with a group of real estate speculators who agreed not to bid against each other at certain public real estate foreclosure auctions in San Joaquin County. The primary purpose of the conspiracy was to suppress and restrain competition and obtain selected real estate offered at San Joaquin County public foreclosure auctions at noncompetitive prices.
Court documents show that after the conspirators designated bidder bought a property at a public auction, they would hold a second private auction. Each participating conspirator would submit bids in the private auction above the public auction price. The conspirator who bid the highest amount at the end of the private auction won the property. The difference between the noncompetitive price at the public auction and the winning bid at the second auction was the groups illicit profit, and it was divided among the conspirators in payoffs. Ghio participated in the bid-rigging scheme from April 2009 until October 2009.
Ghio is charged with bid rigging, a violation of the Sherman Act, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $1 million fine. The maximum fine may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victim of the crime, if either of those amounts is greater than the statutory maximum fine. The actual sentence, however, will be determined at the discretion of the court after consideration of any applicable statutory sentencing 
factors and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which take into account a number of variables.
The investigation is continuing. Anyone with information concerning bid rigging or fraud related to real estate foreclosure auctions should contact the Antitrust Divisions San Francisco Office at 415-436-6660 or visit, or the FBIs Sacramento Division at 916-481-9110, or the U.S. Attorneys Office for the Eastern District of California at 916-554-2900.
Media inquiries to the U.S. Attorneys Office should be directed to Lauren Horwood at 916-554-2706. Media inquiries regarding the departments Antitrust Division should be directed to Gina Talamona at 202-514-2007.
This law enforcement action is part of President Barack Obamas Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force.
President Obama established the interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force to wage an aggressive, coordinated, and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. The task force includes representatives from a broad range of federal agencies, regulatory authorities, inspectors general, and state and local law enforcement who, working together, bring to bear a powerful array of criminal and civil enforcement resources. The task force is working to improve efforts across the federal executive branch, and with state and local partners, to investigate and prosecute significant financial crimes, ensure just and effective punishment for those who perpetrate financial crimes, combat discrimination in the lending and financial markets, and recover proceeds for victims of financial crimes.
One component of the FFETF is the national Mortgage Fraud Working Group, co-chaired by U.S. Attorney Wagner.

pippinghole: Linda Green Robo-Signing Shows Massive Document Fraud

pippinghole: Linda Green Robo-Signing Shows Massive Document Fraud



Strongly consider that last Friday, Maryland threw out 10,000 foreclosure cases over robo-signing issues.  This leads me to wonder how bad things really are in California, a non-judicial foreclosure state.  

Is California now leading the nation as the most morally corrupt and  bankrupt state?  Why do our courts and our attorneys fight for us.

Katherine Miller in California claims that the spoke with Tom Kelly at JPMorgan Chase and that she pled for extra time considering that she had a recent physical injury, had no help to move out her possessions, and has two pending court cases.

Katherine Miller claims that she herself as Robo-Signing issues amongst other claims.  Was  she illegally evicted?  Did her attorneys let us down?

JPMorgan Chase spit in her face and immediately evicted her.  in California claims she talked to JPMorgan Chases' Tom Kelly, pled for extra time considering her recent injury, no help to move all of her possessions out , and two current pending cases in courts. JPMorgan Chase simply spit in her face and immediately evicted her from her home! Katherine should have known to speak fluent Latin!?

Katherine claims SHE has robo-signing issues amongst other claims. Katherine was (unlawfully?) evicted yesterday.

Should Katherine Miller have spoken Latin to those who did her wrong????

 Ex dolo malo non oritur actio.  
No right of action can have its origin in fraud.
(explain this one to Katherine Miller who was (unlawfully ?) evicted from her home yesterday despite her claims of robo-signed documents by JPMorgan Chase.)

Domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium. To everyone his house is his surest refuge. (explain this one to Katherine Miller who was (unlawfully ?) evicted from her home yesterday despite her claims of robo-signed documents by JPMorgan Chase.)

Adversus extraneos vitiosa possessio prodesse solet .  Prior possession is a good title of ownership against all who cannot show a better. (explain this one to Katherine Miller who was (unlawfully ?) evicted from her home yesterday despite her claims of robo-signed documents by JPMorgan Chase.)

Absoluta sententia expositore non indiget   
When you have plain words capable of only one interpretation, no explanation of them is required.
(explain this one to Katherine Miller who was (unlawfully ?) evicted from her home yesterday despite herclaims of robo-signed documents by JPMorgan Chase.)

A verbis legis non est recedendum . 
You must not vary the words of a statute.
(explain this one to Katherine Miller who was (unlawfully ?) evicted from her home yesterday despite her claims of robo-signed documents by JPMorgan Chase.)
Contra preferentum . 
If the words in a contract are ambiguous the contract should be interpreted against the one who wrote the words.
(explain this one to Katherine Miller who was (unlawfully ?) evicted from her home yesterday despite herclaims of robo-signed documents by JPMorgan Chase.)
Ex maleficio non oritur contractus. 
A contract cannot arise out of an illegal act.

(explain this one to Katherine Miller who was (unlawfully ?) evicted from her home yesterday despite herclaims of robo-signed documents by JPMorgan Chase.)

 Ex nudo pacto non oritur actio. No right of action arises from a contract entered into without consideration.
(explain this one to Katherine Miller who was (unlawfully ?) evicted from her home yesterday despite her claims of robo-signed documents by JPMorgan Chase.)
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio. An illegal contract cannot be enforced.
(explain this one to Katherine Miller who was (unlawfully ?) evicted from her home yesterday despite her claims of robo-signed documents by JPMorgan Chase.)
Have you written a letter today to your local editor, law enforcement director, or legislator, in plain English???

Tuesday, January 18, 2011



Bruce Marks

Boston, MA
(888) 297-5568

      (404) 377-4545
      (706) 855-7464
      (410) 783-0465
      (205) 942-8111
      (617) 250-6244
      (716) 834-6222
      (843) 556-0497
      (704) 536-7676
      (773) 723-6222
      (216) 619-4110
      (803) 255-0223
      (972) 283-1171
      (303) 694-5437
      (877) 952-6222
      (713) 706-3400
      (601) 922-4008
      (904) 306-9272
      (816) 531-6222
      (702) 362-6199
      (978) 687-3993
      (501) 492-0083
      (310) 412-2600
      (901) 348-0115
      (414) 442-6222
      (763) 656-6222
      (615) 781-4240
      (203) 562-6220
      (504) 241-2090
      (973) 679-2601
      (510) 652-6622
      (215) 531-5221
      (602) 248-4408
      (919) 855-8484
      (210) 826-2828
      (413) 788-6220
      (314) 645-8333
      (813) 287-5051
      (202) 328-6333

Versión en Español se encuentra al final:

Dear Homeowners,

NACA’s Save the Dream Tour is returning to Los Angeles after an incredibly successful event last October where thousands of homeowners achieved an affordable mortgage solution. We will be at the Los Angeles Sports Arena from Thursday January 20th through Sunday January 30th providing same-day affordable solutions. We will be there for eleven straight days with all the major servicers and investors. Everyone in California, Nevada and others who has not achieved an affordable solution should come.

NACA Los Angeles Save-the-Dream Event:
  • Location: Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Sports Arena (3939 South Figueroa Street)
  • Starts: Thursday January 20th at 8:00 a.m.
  • Ends: Sunday January 30th at 8:00 p.m.
  • Hours: 8:00 a.m. – 11:00 p.m. everyday (may go 24 hours a day to meet the demand)
NACA is determined to achieve your affordable solution. This is your opportunity to get it done. We strongly recommend that you come from near and far, particularly if you are frustrated with your Lender/Servicer due to not getting a response, not getting an acceptable solution, not satisfied with your solution, being denied a solution, or other issues you have with your Lender.

We expect many thousands of homeowners with an unaffordable mortgage to attend with thousands achieving same day solutions during the event. These NACA events have been incredibly successful and have become the only viable solution for large numbers of at-risk homeowners. Many homeowners have had their mortgage payments permanently reduced by over $500 a month and some by over $1,000 often with interest rates reduced to 3% or 2% and sometimes a principal reduction. All of NACA’s services are FREE.
  • Bring your most recent 30 days of pay stubs or other verification of income (self-employed provide six months of bank statements). If you have been working with NACA, you should also access your Web-File to review the most recent updates and your next steps – Click here to review your Web-File.
  • Los Angeles Outreach flyer - Click here to print or send flyer.
Tell your family, friends, neighbors and co-workers. NACA provides the best solution to the mortgage crisis. You have everything to gain and nothing to lose - there is no cost and the major lenders and investors will be on site. Do not miss this opportunity to make your mortgage payment affordable! We look forward in assisting you in achieving your affordable long-term solution.

Links about Save-the-Dream Events:

NACA Management

P.S. Do not miss this incredible opportunity. Tell your friends, family, co-workers and others. Homeowners with an unaffordable mortgage have everything to gain and nothing to lose. IT IS FREE! Remember from Thursday January 20th through Sunday January 30th at the Los Angeles Arena for eleven days. You can register via or call 888-499-6222 but it is not a requirement.

Estimados Dueños de Casa,

La Gira de NACA “Salve su Casa” regresa a Los Ángeles después del exitoso evento en Octubre pasado en donde miles de dueños de casa pudieron re-estructurar su hipoteca alcanzando un pago solvente. NACA va a estar en Los Ángeles Sports Arena desde el Jueves 20 de Enero hasta el Domingo 30 de Enero proveyendo soluciones solventes el mismo día. Estaremos en Los Ángeles por 11 días consecutivos con todos los mayores inversionistas y bancos hipotecarios. Todos en California, Nevada y otros estados que no hayan logrado un pago hipotecario solvente deben venir.

La Gira de NACA Salve su Casa regresa a Los Ángeles
  • Lugar: Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Sports Arena (3939 South Figueroa Street)
  • Comienza: Jueves 20 de Enero a las 8:00 a.m.
  • Termina: Domingo 30 de Enero a las 8:00 a.m.
  • Horas: 8:00 a.m. – 11:00 p.m. todo los días (dependiendo la necesidad, tal vez estaremos abiertos 24 horas al día)
NACA esta determinado en lograr una solución permanente para usted. Esta es su oportunidad de lograrlo. Recomendamos fuertemente que vengan de todas partes, especialmente si esta frustrado con su Prestamista debido a que no ha conseguido una respuesta, no ha conseguido una solución aceptable, si no esta satisfecho con su solución, si ha sido negado una solución, o cualquiera que fuese la situación en que se encuentre con su Prestamista.

Estamos esperando que asistan miles de propietarios que tienen hipotecas no solventes y que podamos ayudar a miles a lograr una solución permanente el mismo día durante el evento. Estos acontecimientos de NACA han sido increíblemente exitosos y han llegado a ser la única solución viable para muchos propietarios en peligro de perder su casa. Muchos propietarios han tenido sus pagos de hipoteca reducidos permanente por más de $500 por mes y para algunos ha sido más de $1.000, a menudo con tipos de interés reducidos a un 3% o 2% y muchas veces si es necesario han obtenido reducción de su principal. Los servicios de NACA son absolutamente GRATIS.
Cuéntele a su familia, amigos, vecinos y compañeros de trabajo. NACA ofrece la mejor solución a la crisis hipotecaria. Usted tiene todo que ganar y nada que perder - no hay costo alguno y los prestamistas y inversionistas principales estarán presente. ¡No pierda esta oportunidad de tener un pago de hipoteca solvente! Esperamos verlo y asistirle en obtener una solución de largo plazo solvente.

Enlaces sobre los eventos, Salvando Sueños con NACA:

La Gerencia de NACA.

P.S. No se pierda esta increíble oportunidad. Dígaselo a sus amigos, compañeros de trabajo y otros que se puedan beneficiar. Dueños de casa con pago de hipoteca no solvente no tienen nada que perder y mucho que ganar. ¡ES ABSOLUTAMENTE GRATIS! Recuerde estaremos en Los Ángeles Arena desde el Jueves 20 de Enero hasta el Domingo 30 de Enero, por 11 días corridos. Para registrase visite o llame al 1-888-499-6222 (pero no es un requisito registrarse)