Ragland v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n
209 Cal. App. 4th 182
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Ragland refinanced with Downey Savings in 2002; later alleges forged signatures on multiple loan documents.
- In 2008 Downey Savings allegedly advised Ragland to skip a payment to qualify for a modification; Ragland relied and stopped April payment.
- Downey Savings placed the loan in investigation/foreclosure; Ragland was told collection was frozen during the investigation.
- Foreclosure sale was scheduled for December 9, 2008 but postponed; Ragland sought to reinstate, offering partial back payments and proposed adjustments.
- Foreclosure sale occurred December 17, 2008; Ragland sued Downey Savings, its successor U.S. Bank, and DSL/FCI for multiple tort and contract claims.
- Trial court granted summary judgment finding no viable tender and no damages; appellate court reverses some claims, affirms others, and remands for amendments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Negligent misrepresentation elements | Ragland shows misrepresentation, reliance, damages, and causation. | No triable issue: no damages; failure to reinstate nullifies recoverable damages. | Triable issues on misrepresentation, reliance, and damages exist |
| Fraud elements and damages | Misrepresentations occurred; justifiable reliance and damages shown. | Lack of evidence on misrepresentation, reliance, or damages. | Fraud reversed for trial on misrepresentation, reliance, and damages |
| Section 2924g(d) private right and preemption | Section 2924g(d) creates a private right to enforce postponement protections. | Federal law preempts state remedies under 2924g(d). | Section 2924g(d) creates a private right of action and is not preempted |
| Intentional infliction of emotional distress | Downey Savings’s conduct could be outrageous and cause severe distress. | Foreclosure and lender actions are not per se outrageous; no duty/rupture shown. | Summary adjudication reversed; Ragland may proceed on any triable duty/outrage issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Mabry v. Superior Court, 185 Cal.App.4th 208 (Cal.App.4th 208 (2010)) (private right of action implied where no admin enforcement)
- Lazar v. Superior Court, 12 Cal.4th 631 (Cal.4th 1996) (elements of fraud require justifiable reliance and damages)
- Erlich v. Menezes, 21 Cal.4th 543 (Cal.1999) (emotional distress damages not available for property damage absent special relationships)
- Barrett v. Bank of America, 183 Cal.App.3d 1362 (Cal.App.3d 1986) (fiduciary-like duty not established; metabolic to breach of implied covenant)
- Spinks v. Equity Residential Briarwood Apartments, 171 Cal.App.4th 1004 (Cal.App.4th 2009) (outrageous conduct in eviction context supports emotional distress claim)