Granadino

Granadino v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Good Law
236 Cal. App. 4th 411
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 29, 2015B256511California3,156 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ashmann-Gerst, J.

Plaintiffs and appellants Robert R. Granadino and his wife, Gloria M. Legaspi (appellants), appeal from the summary judgment granted in favor of defendant and respondent Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Wells Fargo), on appellants’ complaint for promissory estoppel following the foreclosure of their home. Appellants contend their claim is not barred by the statute of frauds, they raised triable issues of material fact on the elements of their claim, they should have been granted a third continuance of the hearing on the motion, and they should be given leave to amend their complaint. We disagree and affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Complaint

On January 11, 2012, appellants filed a complaint against Wells Fargo alleging a single cause of action for promissory estoppel. The complaint alleged that on May 24, 2010, a notice of default was recorded against appellants’ residential property in Pasadena, California. In August 2011, a notice of trustee sale was recorded. Appellants retained the law firm of Rex Law, LLP (Rex Law) to negotiate a loan modification with Wells Fargo, which agreed to continue the trustee sale scheduled for September 24, 2011, to October 17,…

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.