Ceraolo

Ceraolo v. Citibank CA6

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 19, 2014H039579California3,505 words

Opinion

Opinion

Elia, J.

Background The essential underlying facts are undisputed. In December 2008 plaintiffs began discussing the prospect of a loan modification with BAC, servicer on their $3 million mortgage loan, and BAC’s successor by merger, Bank of America, N.A. According to plaintiffs’ first amended complaint, BAC told them that they could not be considered for a loan modification until they had missed two payments on the mortgage. Plaintiffs then skipped two payments in early 2009 and applied for a loan modification. That application was denied, and in October 2009 BAC’s agent, Recontrust, recorded a notice of default. Plaintiffs’ second modification application in January 2010 was also denied. Plaintiffs’ complaint alleged that BAC had never intended to grant them a loan modification; it had “deceived” them, causing their credit score of approximately 700 to be “severely diminished.” On May 6, 2010, a notice of trustee’s sale was recorded on the property, scheduling the sale for May 28, 2010. Shortly thereafter plaintiffs received a “Reinstatement Calculation” showing a “Net Total Due” of $373,136.24. On May 24, 2010, plaintiffs met with Nilmeyer, who plaintiffs alleged represented herself as…

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.