California Court of Appeal

Summary judgment for defendants on dispute following foreclosure on construction loan agreement reversed and remanded as to defendant bank who purchased assets of the bank that entered into the loan agreement, where: 1) the trial court improperly rested its holding on the terms of a shorter, disputed version of the Purchase and Assumption Agreement submitted by defendant; 2) prolonged miscommunication about a possible loan modification raises a triable issue of fact of intent by defendant bank to profit by misleading plaintiff about his loan modification prospects; 3) a triable issue of fact exists whether defendant bank has potential liability for its own conduct under a theory of promissory estoppel; 4) there is a triable issue of material fact as to a duty of care to plaintiff, which potentially makes defendant bank liable for its own negligence; 5) triable issues of fact exists as to whether defendant bank's conduct was fraudulent or unfair for the purposes of the unfair competition claim; 6) a triable issue of fact exist as to the reformation claim; but 7) summary adjudication for defendant bank on the declaratory relief and accounting causes of action was proper.

Appellate Information

• Decided 02/11/2013
• Published 02/11/2013

Judges

• RICHMAN

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel