Bank of America N.T. & S.A., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee v. Patrick R. McMahon and Kathleen (Inda) McMahon Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellants. Bank of America N.T. & S.A., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant v. Patrick R. McMahon and Kathleen (Inda) McMahon Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellees

8 F.3d 25 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. BANK OF AMERICA N.T. & S.A., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee, v. Patrick R. McMAHON, and Kathleen (INDA) McMahon, Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellants. BANK OF AMERICA N.T. & S.A., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant, v. Patrick R. McMAHON, and Kathleen (Inda) McMahon, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellees. Nos. 92-15758, 92-15759. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Aug. 12, 1993. Decided Sept. 21, 1993. Before: KOZINSKI, THOMPSON, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM * I. BANK'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION A. Waiver 2 The McMahons claim that they are relieved of their obligation to pay the mortgage debt because Fay DeJesus told Patrick McMahon during a telephone conversation that if he made an immediate payment on November 19 or 20, 1986, the account would not be sent to "collections." Accordingly, they contend that the Bank "waived" its right to collect the…