Mannarino

Mannarino v. Bank of America CA2/6

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 31, 2013B243803California1,536 words

Opinion

Opinion

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On November 18, 2011, Mannarino and Treihaft filed a complaint in propria persona against the Bank of America, N.A., ReconTrust Company, N.A., Flor Valerio, and T. Sevillano, regarding Mannarino's purchase of real property in Ventura County, and its subsequent foreclosure.1 Bank demurred, and prior to the hearing regarding the demurrer, Mannarino filed a first amended complaint. Bank again demurred. The trial court sustained the demurrer and permitted Mannarino leave to amend the complaint.

1 We shall refer to plaintiffs as "Mannarino" and defendants as "Bank" except where clarity demands that we draw a distinction. On May 18, 2012, Mannarino filed a 111-page second amended complaint naming 16 causes of action in a chain-pleading manner.2 The complaint is in part unintelligible and states many factual and legal conclusions. Mannarino alleges that on March 28, 2007, she applied for a loan from Bank of America, N.A. to purchase a home. Two bank employees accepted her application and informed her that she would receive a 30-year fixed rate loan, but she received a 10-year interest only adjustable rate loan instead. She then executed loan documents…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.