Summary Judgment Reversed In Foreclosure Case.

Plaintiff alleges she realized something was wrong with the loan on her home when she saw her signature was forged on a few of the loan documents. She hired a handwriting expert who confirmed some of the documents were not signed by her. She immediately brought the issue to the attention of the lender savings & loan. Plaintiff says she relied on a misrepresentation by a man named John at the savings & loan who told her not to make the April 2008 loan payment because “the worst thing that’s going to happen is you are going to have a late fee, and we will get this done for you.” Immediately after the April 2008 payment was not paid, foreclosure proceedings were instituted, and her tenders of late payments were rejected. Her home was sold at a foreclosure sale. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the ground plaintiff suffered no damages because she was not able to reinstate the loan by tendering the back payments and fees. The appeals court, after liberally construing plaintiff’s evidence, said a reasonable inference was that she tried to make her monthly payments but the savings & loan rejected them, that she had been able to make the monthly payments at the time of the foreclosure sale, but that she had not been able to pay the additional late fees tacked on by savings & loan. The Court of Appeal reversed the grant of summary judgment on causes of action for negligent misrepresentation, fraud, violation of Civil Code §2924g(d), and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Ragland v. U.S. Bank National Association (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 3; September 11, 2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 182.  [The FDIC took control of Downey Savings in November 2008 and later assigned its assets, including plaintiff’s loan, to U.S. Bank].