Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

Firm Profile

Homeowners' Bill of Rights

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

Morris v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. A155027, 2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 384 (Ct. App. May 4, 2022)

Particularly as amended in 2019, Civ. Code 2923.7 requires a loan servicer to appoint a SPOC for each borrower who seeks a foreclosure alternative.  The borrower need not specifically request a SPOC in order to trigger the statute.  Interpreting Civ. Code 2924.12, the decision holds that for post-foreclosure damages purposes, the court must analyze harm in three steps.  First, did… Read More

Billesbach v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC (2021)

Defendant initially violated HBOR by refusing to consider plaintiff's loan modification application because only his deceased wife was the borrower on the loan, but defendant cured its violation after suit was filed by canceling the pending foreclosure, accepting and review plaintiff's loan modification application, and offering him a trial payment plan intended to lead to a loan modification.  Thinking he… Read More

Adams v. Bank of America, N.A. (2020)

Under Civ. Code 2924.15, HBOR's provisions apply only to owner-occupied properties.  But the section goes on to define "owner-occupied" as property that is the borrower's principal residence and security for a loan made for consumer purposes.  This decision reads the definition literally, holding that so long as the property is the borrower's principal residence, HBOR's provisions apply even if the… Read More

Schmidt v. Citibank, N.A.

by Jan T. Chilton |

Plaintiff borrowers declaration that he did not recall receiving thirty or more telephone calls with servicer prior to recordation of a notice of default on his mortgage loan did not suffice to create a triable issue of fact as to whether those contacts had taken place since he did not deny that they happened. Read More

Conroy v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

A loan servicer owes a borrower no duty of care in handling his home loan modification application; also, unless the borrower documents a change in financial circumstances, dual tracking prohibitions do not apply to second/subsequent loan modification requests, even if the lender accepts, processes, and reviews the later loan applications.   Read More

Berman v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A.

A loan servicer violates Civil Code section 2923.6 by sending the borrower a loan modification denial letter erroneously stating that the borrower has only 15 days to appeal the denial.  Read More

Gillies v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.

The dismissal of a borrower’s fourth foreclosure delay lawsuit is affirmed based on res judicata and a lack of merit in the borrower’s securitization arguments.  Read More

Lucioni v. Bank of America, N.A.

Nothing in the Homeowners’ Bill of Rights requires a foreclosing party to prove, prior to foreclosure, that it has the right to foreclose; rather, the statute allows pre-foreclosure injunction actions only for violation of certain specified HBOR sections, which are enumerated in sections 2924.12 and 2924.19 of the Civil Code.  Read More

Sese v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

An order denying an interim award of attorney’s fees under the Homeowner’s Bill of Rights after the borrower/plaintiff was successful in obtaining issuance of a preliminary injunction to prevent foreclosure, is interlocutory and therefore non-appealable.  Read More