Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Richard Wilson Pham v. Bank of America Corporation et al

May 7, 2013

RICHARD WILSON PHAM, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND RESPONDENTS.



(Super. Ct. No. CVCS101845)

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robie , Acting P. J.

Pham v. Bank of America

CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

In this action, commenced in August 2010, plaintiff Richard Wilson Pham sought to hold defendants Bank of America Corporation (Bank of America) and The Ryland Group, Inc. (Ryland) liable for wrongfully convincing him to secure a home loan he did not qualify for and could not afford in February 2006. His claim is based on false information in loan applications that he claimed he was not aware of until years later. The trial court sustained defendants' demurrers, concluding Pham's complaint was time-barred because he should have been aware of the false information in the loan applications when he signed the applications. After Pham declined to amend his complaint, the trial court dismissed the case. Finding no error by the trial court, we will affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On August 16, 2010, Pham commenced this action against Bank of America and Ryland by filing a complaint for damages asserting causes of action for negligence, fraud, concealment, negligent misrepresentation, constructive fraud, and gross negligence. In his complaint, Pham alleged as follows:

On or about December 11, 2005, Pham met with a Ryland sales representative to begin the process of applying for a loan to purchase a house in Live Oak for $394,998. Ryland is a home builder that also owns and operates a home lending business. Pham submitted documentation -- including bank statements, employment verification, and tax returns -- to Ryland in connection with his loan application.

At some point, Ryland told Pham that Bank of America would be funding the loan that Ryland was processing for him.

Unbeknownst to Pham, sometime between December 11, 2005, and February 8, 2006, Ryland completed loan application papers for Pham that overstated his monthly income and assets and contained false statements about down payment borrowing and subordinate loan status.

On February 8, 2006, Ryland sent Pham a promissory note to sign for a $306,600 loan at 5.875 percent interest, with a 30-year term to begin on April 1, 2006. On that same date, Ryland sent Pham a notice that the loan would be transferred to Countrywide Home Loans for processing and the total monthly payment to Countrywide would be $2,247.28.

Three years later, around February 20, 2009, Pham began asking that Bank of America refinance his loan "at an amount that would be realistic based both on his income and on the fair market value of the Property." Bank of America refused to do so.

After several requests, sometime on or after June 15, 2009, Pham "received copies of his original loan documents that he had signed for the [Bank of America] home loan that had been negotiated by RYLAND representatives, . . . copies of which had never been previously provided to [him]." Upon receipt of those documents, Pham discovered inconsistencies between the information that had been submitted to the lender and the information he had originally provided to Ryland. For example, Pham had provided Ryland with documentation that his monthly income was $3,158, but the loan applications for the first and second loans showed that his monthly income was $6,200. Also, Pham had provided Ryland with ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.