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.

Granadino v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Second Division

April 14, 2015

ROBERT R. GRANADINO et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant and Respondent.

[As modified Apr. 29, 2015.]

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. GC048748 William D. Stewart, Judge.

Page 412

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 413

COUNSEL

Law Offices of John Thomas Dzialo and John T. Dzialo for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Severson & Werson, Jan T. Chilton; and Kerry W. Franich for Defendant and Respondent.

OPINION

ASHMANN-GERST J.

Plaintiffs and appellants Robert R. Granadino and his wife Gloria M. Legaspi (appellants) appeal from the summary judgment granted in favor of defendant and respondent Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Wells Fargo) on appellants’ complaint for promissory estoppel following the foreclosure of their home. Appellants contend their claim is not barred by the statute of frauds, they raised triable issues of material fact on the elements of their clam, they should have been granted a third continuance of the hearing on the motion, and they should be given leave to amend their complaint. We disagree and affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Complaint

On January 11, 2012, appellants filed a complaint against Wells Fargo alleging a single cause of action for promissory estoppel. The complaint alleged that on May 24, 2010, a notice of default was recorded against

Page 414

appellants’ residential property in Pasadena, California. In August 2011, a notice of trustee sale was recorded. Appellants retained the law firm of Rex Law, LLP (Rex Law) to negotiate a loan modification with Wells Fargo, which agreed to continue the trustee sale scheduled for September 24, 2011 to October 17, 2011.

On October 17, 2011, a paralegal from the Rex Law firm spoke with Wells Fargo representative Maylene Munoz (Munoz), who stated that appellants were “under active review for a modification and, therefore, there no longer was a trustee [sale] date scheduled.” In fact, a sale date of December 16, 2011 was scheduled, and appellants’ home was sold at that sale. Just prior to the sale, on December 10, 2011, the same paralegal spoke with Munoz and told her that appellants’ tax returns were available. Munoz instructed him to submit the returns, but said nothing about the upcoming sale. Had appellants known about the scheduled sale date, they would have fully reinstated the loan.

The complaint seeks relief in the form of an injunction so that appellants can remain in the home during litigation.

The Summary Judgment Motion

On April 12, 2013, Wells Fargo filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the complaint was barred by the statute of frauds, appellants could not establish the elements of promissory estoppel, and appellants failed to demonstrate damages.

At appellants’ request, the summary judgment hearing was twice continued. The trial court denied a third request for continuance, and the hearing took place on February 7, 2014. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment, finding that appellants’ claim was barred by the statute of frauds and that ...


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.