Procedural Posture

[Saim Khan]

Appellant borrower challenged a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County (California), which dismissed his action against defendants, a lender and related others, that alleged claims for fraud and deceit, violations of California's unfair competition law (UCL), Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200, and declaratory relief. The borrower filed the action to halt foreclosure proceedings and to cancel the notes against his home.

Overview: legal doctor

The court held that the borrower did not state a claim for fraud or deceit. Predictions about a buyer's real estate investment or the fair market value for property in the future were not actionable misrepresentations. The borrower also did not state a claim for violation of the UCL. Defendants could not be held liable for unlawful business practices where there was no violation of another law. Moreover, the borrower did not allege defendants' conduct related to his loan processing was unfair, as he did not allege any statements about the appraisal or opinions about the possible future value of the home constituted conduct tethered to a violation of a constitutional, statutory, or regulatory provision. Because defendants did not owe the borrower a duty to disclose related to the appraisal or to guarantee the success of his investment, the borrower did not adequately state a claim for a fraudulent business practice under the UCL. The borrower was not entitled to declaratory relief because he failed to present a claim supporting a justiciable controversy. He had no standing based on the National Mortgage Settlement and did not sufficiently allege the loan was unconscionable.

 

Outcome

The court affirmed the judgment.