Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02461/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02461-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Helen E. Reader, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Bank of America NA, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-11-02461-PHX-FJM

ORDER 

 The court of appeals has asked us to "reconsider Reader's claims for promissory 

estoppel" in light of its intervening opinion in Corvello v. Wells Fargo Bank, 728 F.3d 

878(9th Cir. 2013) and to "reconsider ['Reader's claim for violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. 

sec. 33-420'] in light of intervening state case law." Mandate at 3 (Doc. 28-1). It also 

remanded Reader's request for injunctive relief which in turn was dependent on the 

reconsideration of the two remanded substantive claims. Id. at 4. In all other respects, 

our prior dismissal was affirmed. We gave the parties an opportunity to engage in 

discovery and motion practice on the two remanded issues. Scheduling Order of October 

23, 2014 (Doc. 32). 

 We now have before us "Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment" (Doc. 45), 

"Statement of Facts" (Doc. 46), "Plaintiff's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment" (Doc. 

54), "Statement of Facts" (Doc. 55), "Defendants' Opposition" (Doc. 60), "Controverting 

Statement of Facts" (Doc. 61), "Plaintiff's Reply" (Doc. 62), "Plaintiff's Response and 

Objection to Defendants' Second Pleading of a Statement of Facts" (Doc. 63), and, 

Case 2:11-cv-02461-FJM Document 65 Filed 08/04/15 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

"Plaintiff's Request for Mandatory Judicial Notice" (Doc. 64). We note that plaintiff is 

proceeding pro se and has misapprehended the rules relating to motion practice. Instead 

of filing a Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, she filed a Cross 

Motion. But the Cross Motion was out of time because it was not filed within the Rule 

16 Scheduling Order's deadline for filing motions for summary judgment. She also 

exceeded the page limits without leave of court. Without excusing these violations, and 

for the sole purpose of resolving this case on its merits, we construe plaintiff's cross 

motion as a response to defendants' motion for summary judgment. We acknowledge 

that as a practical matter it makes little difference. We note also that plaintiff's papers fail 

to acknowledge the limited nature of the remand. We address only the remanded claims. 

All other contentions and arguments are precluded by the prior order of dismissal 

affirmed on appeal. 

 I. Promissory Estoppel/Corvello

Corvello holds that a bank is required to offer a permanent modification to a 

borrower who completes all its obligations under a trial period plan unless the bank 

timely notifies the borrower that the borrower does not qualify for a modification. 

Defendants contend that they, indeed, did notify plaintiff that she did not qualify. They 

rely on a letter dated November 1, 2010 they sent to plaintiff stating that her "loan is not 

eligible for a Home Affordable Modification because we are unable to create an 

affordable payment equal to 31% of your reported monthly gross income without 

changing the terms of your loan beyond the requirements of the program." Exhibit B to 

Affidavit of Melissa Davidson (Doc. 46-2, at 22). Although plaintiff asserts that she did 

not receive the letter, Cross Motion at 25, her assertion is not under oath. Moreover, she 

acknowledges under oath that she was informed of her denial of modification "after she 

contacted BANA on or about March 2010." Plaintiff Helen E. Reader Affidavit, 

paragraph 7 at 2 (Doc. 55). There is thus no genuine issue of material fact over the 

bank's notification that plaintiff did not qualify. This means that under Corvello the bank 

was not required to offer plaintiff a permanent modification even if she completed her 

Case 2:11-cv-02461-FJM Document 65 Filed 08/04/15 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

obligations under the trial period plan. 

 II. A.R.S. sec. 33-420 

 A Notice of Trustee Sale, a Notice of Substitution of Trustee, and an Assignment 

of Deed of Trust are interests in property within the meaning of A.R.S. sec. 33-420. 

Stauffer v. US Bank National Assoc., 308 P.3d 1173 (Ariz. App. 2013). A property 

owner has standing under A.R.S. sec. 33-420. Sitton v. Deutsche Bank National Trust 

Co., 311 P.3d 237 (Ariz. App. 2013). But the misrepresentations must be material to the 

property owner or else there is no claim under the statute. Id. at paragraphs 27 and 28. 

Here, as in Sitton, plaintiff's obligations arise under the note. "Her liability on the note 

remained the same no matter who was assigned as beneficiary, or when. The 

misrepresentations in the recorded assignments were therefore immaterial to her as a 

matter of law." Sitton at paragraph 33. Thus, plaintiff is not helped by intervening 

developments in Arizona law. 

 III. Request for Injunctive Relief 

 Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief against the trustee's sale is dependent upon 

the remaining two substantive claims. But, as we have shown, defendants are entitled to 

summary judgment on the remaining claims. Accordingly, defendants are entitled to 

summary judgment on the request for injunctive relief as well. 

 IV. Conclusion 

 Because there are no genuine issues of material fact and because defendants are 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law, it is ORDERED GRANTING defendants' Motion 

for Summary Judgment (Doc. 45), and DENYING plaintiff's Cross Motion for Summary 

Judgment (Doc. 54). 

 All pending hearings and deadlines are vacated. The Clerk is directed to terminate 

this case and enter final judgment in favor of defendants. 

 Dated this 3rd day of August, 2015. 

Case 2:11-cv-02461-FJM Document 65 Filed 08/04/15 Page 3 of 3