Edward Zadrozny v. Bank of New York Mellon

Good Law
720 F.3d 1163·2013 WL 3242528·2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 13309
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 28, 201311-16597California4,093 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rawlinson, J.

Appellants Edward and Kymberly Za-drozny (the Zadroznys) challenge the dismissal of their first amended complaint against Defendants/Appellees. The Za-droznys contend that the district court erred in dismissing their claims that Ap-pellees improperly initiated non-judicial foreclosure proceedings after the Zadroz-nys failed to comply with the mortgage obligations financing their residence. The Zadroznys also challenge the district court’s denial of leave to further amend their Complaint. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

On August 17, 2005, the Zadroznys borrowed $543,600 from Defendani/Appellee Soma Financial, Inc. (Soma) pursuant to a promissory note secured by a deed of trust. The promissory note provided that “Lender may transfer this Note....” The deed of trust stated that “[t]he Note or a partial interest in the Note (together with the Security Instrument) can be sold one or more times without prior notice to Borrower. A sale might result in a change in the entity (known as the Loan Servicer) that collects Periodic Payments due under the Note and this Security Instrument and performs other mortgage loan servicing obligations under the Note ...” The deed of trust provided…

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.