Fraud claimed when plaintiff seeks to reinstate home loan. $3.7M. Riverside County.

Summary

Loan servicer denies homeowner the right to bring mortgage current (reinstate the loan) after loan goes into default.

Case Name: Galyardt v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC; Residential Mortgage Solutions LLC
Court and Case Number: Riverside County Superior Court / MCC1600152
Date of Verdict or Judgment: Monday, October 28, 2019
Date Action was Filed: Wednesday, February 24, 2016
Type of Case: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Negligence, Real Estate Fraud, Misrepresentation
Judge or Arbitrator(s): Hon. Rick Brown (Ret)
Plaintiffs:
Michelle Galyardt, 55, dental assistant.
Defendants:
Specialized Loan Servicing LLC; Residential Mortgage Solutions LLC
Type of Result: Jury Verdict

Gross Verdict or Award: $3,758,232
Net Verdict or Award: $3,758,232
Award as to each Defendant:
$918,232 jointly and severally; $2,160,000 punitive damages against Specialized Loan Servicing LLC; $680,000 punitive damages against Residential Mortgage Solutions LLC.
Economic Damages:
$8,232
Non-Economic Damages:
Past: $430,000

Future: $480,000
Punitive Damages:
$2,160,000 punitive damages against Specialized Loan Servicing LLC; $680,000 punitive damages against Residential Mortgage Solutions LLC.
Trial or Arbitration Time: 2 weeks.
Jury Deliberation Time: 3 days.
Jury Polls: Unanimous verdict.
Post Trial Motions & Post-Verdict Settlements: Motion for new trial denied.

Attorney for the Plaintiff:
Louis White PC by Jamil L. White and Andrey Yurtsan, Sacramento.
Attorney for the Defendant:
Ryan Law Firm PC by Andrew Mase and Timothy Ryan, Irvine.

Plaintiff's Technical Expert(s):
Alexandra Lira Mendonsa, real estate finance, loss mitigation.

Facts and Background:
During the financial crisis of 2009, plaintiff's household experienced unemployment and lost income and plaintiff was unable to pay the mortgage payments as they became due. However, plaintiff turned it around, doubled the household income and was able to begin resuming payments. Plaintiff simply needed to get the loan current.

In February 2016, three weeks before the scheduled trustee sale, plaintiff came up with $63,000 to fully reinstate her loan. However, defendants illegally denied plaintiff’s reinstatement rights.
Plaintiff's Contentions:
That irrespective of whether plaintiff was a responsible or irresponsible borrower, irrespective of plaintiff’s default history under the loan, as a California homeowner, plaintiff was entitled to the full protection afforded by Civil Code 2924c, specifically plaintiff had the right to reinstate her loan.

That defendants illegally denied plaintiff’s reinstatement rights by misleading plaintiff, providing inaccurate reinstatement information, and charging false inflated fees that are per se illegal under CC 2924c. In effect, defendants denied plaintiff’s reinstatement rights, defrauded plaintiff, and engineered the wrongful foreclosure of plaintiff’s family home simply to liquidate a $290,000 asset. Plaintiff sued for damages as a result of defendants’ acts and omissions.
Defendant's Contentions:
That plaintiff failed to tender the proper amount to reinstate the loan.