Rossetta

I agree with the majority opinion in all respects except for part II. F. of the Discussion pertaining to negligence. As to that part, I concur in the ultimate conclusion-that Rossetta has stated a cause of action for negligence-but I write separately because I believe a lender's mere receipt or review of a borrower's loan modification application is not enough to create a changed relationship that may give rise to a tort duty of care. More is required to impose a tort duty on a lender.

Rossetta alleges in her second amended complaint that CitiMortgage negligently mishandled her loan modification applications. As the majority opinion explains, the elements of a cause of action for lender negligence begin with whether the lender had a duty to exercise due care. (See Merrill v. Navegar, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 465 , 500, 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 370 , 28 P.3d 116 .) (Maj. opn., ante , at p. 31.)

This court has recognized the long-standing general rule that "a financial institution *612 owes no duty of care to a borrower when the institution's *646 involvement in the loan transaction does not exceed the scope of its conventional role as a mere lender of money." ( Nymark v. Heart Fed. Savings…

*631 Plaintiff Antoinette Rossetta appeals from a judgment dismissing her second amended complaint 1 after the trial court sustained a demurrer by defendants CitiMortgage, Inc. (CitiMortgage) and U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee for Citicorp Residential Trust Series 2006-1 (2006-1 Trust). The complaint asserts causes of action for intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, promissory estoppel, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and unlawful business practices in violation of the Unfair Competition Law arising from loan modification negotiations spanning more than two years. Rossetta also appeals from the trial court's dismissal of a cause of action for conversion that appeared in an earlier iteration of the complaint to which CitiMortgage and the 2006-1 Trust (collectively, CitiMortgage, unless otherwise indicated) also successfully demurred.

We conclude (1) the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the causes of action for negligence and violations of the Unfair Competition Law, (2) the trial court properly sustained the demurrer to the causes of action for intentional misrepresentation and promissory…