Crosby

Crosby v. Aurora Loan Services CA3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 27, 2014C071027California1,533 words

Opinion

Opinion

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On an appeal from a judgment of dismissal on a demurrer, we deem plaintiff’s factual allegations as true. (Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 966- 967.) We also accept as true facts appearing in exhibits attached to the complaint, and, to the extent they conflict with the allegations in the pleading, we give them preference. (Brakke v. Economic Concepts, Inc. (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 761, 767-768.) In 2006, plaintiff refinanced the purchase of his home with a 30-year adjustable rate note and deed of trust in the amount of $1.5 million at 7.625 percent interest. Monthly payments were $10,616.91. In May 2009, plaintiff began experiencing financial difficulties, and he stopped paying on the note. The lender subsequently recorded a notice of default and, later, a notice of trustee’s sale. In January 2010, plaintiff contacted defendant Aurora, the entity that serviced plaintiff’s loan, to seek a loan modification. The parties entered into a “workout agreement” under which Aurora agreed not to foreclose upon the deed of trust for a period of roughly six months and to consider plaintiff’s request for a loan modification. In exchange,…

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.