Tuesday, August 15, 2017
Conroy v. Wells Fargo Bank
Cal.App. 3rd Dist. (C078914) 7/28/17
This is another case in which homeowners lived in a house for many years while challenging a lender's right to foreclose. The homeowners finally lost. The court concluded that the complaint did not state valid causes of action for intentional or negligent misrepresentation because plaintiffs did not properly plead actual reliance or damages proximately caused by Wells Fargo. The trial court properly determined that plaintiffs could not assert a tort claim for negligence arising out of a contract with Well Fargo. For lack of detrimental reliance on any of Wells Fargo’s alleged promises, plaintiffs did not set forth a viable cause of action for promissory estoppel. The claim under Civil Code Section 2923.6 was not viable because subdivision (g) of that statute excludes loan modification applications undertaken before January 2, 2013. Because Wells Fargo considered and rejected a loan modification before that date, section 2923.6 does not apply to them. Section 2923.7 requires a borrower to expressly request a single point of contact with the loan servicer and the complaint did not allege plaintiffs ever requested a single point of contact. Finally, the trial court properly dismissed the UCL claim because it is merely derivative of other causes of action that were properly dismissed.