MATSUMURA v BANK OF AMERICA | Another Victory in Hawaii US District Court! Order Denying Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

MATSUMURA v BANK OF AMERICA | Another Victory in Hawaii US District Court! Order Denying Defendant’s Motion For Summary Judgment

MATSUMURA v BANK OF AMERICA | Another Victory in Hawaii US District Court! Order Denying Defendant’s Motion For Summary Judgment

via DUBIN LAW OFFICES

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

MILES Y. MATSUMURA and
VALERIE A. MATSUMURA,
Plaintiffs,

vs.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; and
DOES 1-50.
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

excerpt:

In short, genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether promissory
estoppel can apply. At the very minimum, the doctrine could create liability or
responsibility by Defendant for additional fees and costs that Plaintiffs incurred in
reasonable reliance in June 2010, when they brought the loan current. See, e.g.,
Dixon, 798 F. Supp. 2d at 348 (“[D]amages appropriately will be confined to the
value of their expenditures in reliance on Wells Fargo’s promise [not to initiate
foreclosure proceedings].”). Whether or not the relevant promise was merely to
consider Plaintiffs for a loan modification, or whether promises were made that
they actually qualified for, and would receive, a modification, cannot be
determined at this summary judgment phase. Similarly, it is premature — because a
determination depends on the credibility and extent of any promises made by
Defendant — to decide whether it was reasonable for Plaintiffs to fail to make
payments after June 2010. And even assuming that terms of any promised loan
modification are too vague and uncertain to enforce, the extent of any equitable
remedy that might be available would depend on the nature of the promises that
were made and the reasonableness of Plaintiffs’ reliance — factual determinations
that cannot be made at this summary judgment stage. See id. at 348 n.2 (“[A]ll of
this remains speculative; assuming liability, the evidence presented at trial will no
doubt illuminate the proper measure of reliance damages that the Court ought [to]
fashion.”).

V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Bank of America, N.A.’s
Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. No. 35, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, May 20, 2013.
/_s_/ _J_. _M_i_c_h_a_e_l _S_e_a_b_ri_g_h_t__________
J. Michael Seabright
United States District Judge

Down Load PDF of This Case

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Comments

comments

This post was written by:

- who has written 8684 posts on FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA.

CONTROL FRAUD | ‘If you don’t look; you don’t find, Wherever you look; you will find’ -William Black

Contact the author

Leave a Reply

GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com

Archives