Ceraolo
Ceraolo v. Citibank CA6
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…