Filed 10/29/14 Wijeyewardene v. CitiMortgage CA2/1 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION ONE 

LLOYD WIJEYEWARDENE, 

 Plaintiff and Appellant, 

 v. 

CITIMORTGAGE, INC., a New York 

Corporation, et al., 

 Defendants and Respondents. 

 B249147 

 (Los Angeles County 

 Super. Ct. No. BC472522) 

 APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Mary H. 

Strobel, Judge. Affirmed. 

 Law Office of Robert S. Altagen and Robert S. Altagen for Plaintiff and 

Appellant. 

 Wolfe & Wyman, Stuart B. Wolfe, and Samantha N. Lamm for Defendants and 

Respondents. 

____________________________________ 
2

 Plaintiff Lloyd Wijeyewardene appeals from the summary judgment entered in 

favor of defendants CitiMortgage, Inc. and Bank of America, N.A. on his complaint for 

promissory estoppel and quiet title. We affirm. 

 In October 2006, plaintiff refinanced his home, obtaining a new loan in the 

principal amount of $881,000. The loan was secured by a deed of trust against plaintiff’s 

home. 

 In June 2009, plaintiff and CitiMortgage “entered into a loan modification 

agreement, which capitalized the arrearages and extended the terms of the loan.” 

Plaintiff nonetheless defaulted on his home loan in March 2010, and the trustee recorded 

a notice of default on August 16, 2010. On November 17, 2010, the trustee recorded 

a notice of trustee’s sale and set the sale for December 8, 2010. 

 On August 11, 2011, Amanda Gittemeier of CitiMortgage entered into an 

agreement with plaintiff to postpone the foreclosure sale, which was scheduled to take 

place on August 15, 2011. According to defendants, Gittemeier agreed to postpone the 

sale for 60 days if plaintiff made a good faith payment of $2,010. According to plaintiff, 

Gittemeier agreed that if plaintiff applied for a loan modification and made a good faith 

payment of $2,010, then the sale would be postponed as long as the loan modification 

application was pending. Plaintiff made the $2,010 payment on August 11, 2011. 

 On October 10 and October 12, 2011, CitiMortgage determined that plaintiff 

did not have sufficient income to qualify for a loan modification.

1

 On October 11, 13, 

and 14, 2011, CitiMortgage sent plaintiff letters denying his request for a modification.

2

 On October 18, 2011, the trustee foreclosed.

3

 On October 21, 2011, the trustee 

recorded the trustee’s deed upon sale. 

 

1 In his separate statement, plaintiff identifies this fact as disputed, but he cites only 

his own declaration, which contains no contrary evidence on this point. 

2 In his separate statement, plaintiff identifies this fact as disputed, but he cites only 

his own declaration, which contains no contrary evidence on this point. 

3 In his separate statement, plaintiff identifies this fact as disputed, but he cites only 

his declaration, which concedes that the foreclosure took place on October 18, 2011. 
3

 On November 9, 2011, plaintiff filed suit. The operative second amended 

complaint alleges claims for promissory estoppel and quiet title. Plaintiff alleges that 

CitiMortgage led him to the false beliefs that “he would be able to save his home during 

the period when the agreed payments were made and the loan modification application 

was still pending” and that “he would not lose the home until [CitiMortgage] had the 

time . . . to either reject or accept the application.” He alleged that as a result of that 

wrongful conduct, he failed to pursue various courses of action to protect his interests, 

such as filing a bankruptcy petition. He also alleges that CitiMortgage’s allegedly 

wrongful conduct rendered the foreclosure sale invalid, so he is still the rightful owner 

of the home. 

 Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the undisputed facts show 

that plaintiff’s claims fail as a matter of law because CitiMortgage postponed the 

foreclosure for (more than) 60 days and did not foreclose until after denying plaintiff’s 

loan modification application. 

 The superior court granted defendants’ motion. The court agreed that plaintiff’s 

claims lacked merit because the undisputed facts showed that CitiMortgage foreclosed 

“after reviewing and denying Plaintiff’s loan modification [application].” The court 

entered judgment in favor of defendants, and plaintiff timely appealed. 

 On appeal, plaintiff argues, as he did in the trial court, that CitiMortgage’s 

“ongoing request for loan modification documents up until the eve of foreclosure 

represented [an] existing clear and unambiguous promise that [the] loan modification 

was still in progress.” (Bold omitted.) We are not persuaded. For example, plaintiff 

cites evidence that CitiMortgage was requesting documents on October 5 and 6, 2011, 

when the loan modification application was undisputedly still pending. He cites no 

evidence that CitiMortgage requested additional documents after October 10 and 12 

(when the application was denied) or after October 11, 13, and 14 (when CitiMortgage 

sent him letters notifying him of the denial). Plaintiff also points to the absence of 

evidence that Gittemeier herself informed him that “the foreclosure was going to take 

place,” but he does not explain how that point could be relevant. The undisputed 
4

evidence shows that CitiMortgage denied the loan modification application and 

repeatedly informed plaintiff of the denial before foreclosing.

4

 We conclude that the superior court did not err by granting summary judgment in 

favor of defendants. 

DISPOSITION 

 The judgment is affirmed. Respondents shall recover their costs of appeal. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED. 

 ROTHSCHILD, P. J. 

We concur: 

 CHANEY, J. 

 MILLER, J.

 

4 Plaintiff also contends that CitiMortgage’s servicing notes support his position 

in various ways. As support, he cites only an attorney declaration that describes the 

notes on the basis of a “cursory review” of the relevant documents, but he does not cite 

the notes themselves. We conclude that the servicing notes do not support plaintiff’s 

position, for the reasons already given and for the reasons given by the trial court, none 

of which plaintiff addresses. 



 Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to 

article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.