Filed 10/29/14 Wijeyewardene v. CitiMortgage CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 a nd Robert S. Altage n for Plaintiff and Appellant. Wolfe & Wyman, Stuart B. Wolfe, a nd Samantha N. Lamm for Defendants and Respondents.

___________________ _________________2 Plaintiff Lloyd Wijeyewardene appeal s from the summary ju dgment entered in favor of defendants CitiMortgage, Inc. and Bank of America, N.A. on his complaint for promissory estoppel and qu iet 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 CitiMortg age “entered into a loan modification agreement, which capitalized th e 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 trus tee recorded
a notice of trustee’s sale and set the sale for December 8, 2010. On August 11, 2011, Am anda Gittemeier of CitiMortgage entered into an agreement with plaintiff to postpone the foreclosure sale, which was scheduled to take place on August 15, 2011. Acco rding to defendants, Gittemeie r 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 plai ntiff applied for a loan modifi cation 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 Octobe r 12, 2011, CitiMortgage de termined 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 hi s 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 identif ies this fact as disp uted, but he cites only his own declaration, which contains no contrary evidence on this point.

2 In his separate statement, plaintiff identif ies this fact as disp uted, but he cites only his own declaration, which contains no contrary evidence on this point.

3 In his separate statement, plaintiff identif ies this fact as disp uted, but he cites only his declaration, which conced es that the foreclosure to ok place on October 18, 2011.3 On November 9, 2011, plaintiff file d suit. The operative second amended complaint alleges claims for pr omissory estoppel and quiet title. Plaintiff alleges that CitiMortgage led him to the fals e beliefs that “he would be able to save his home during the period when the ag reed payments were made and th e loan modification application was still pending” and that “h e would not lose the home until [CitiMortgage] had the time . . . to either reject or accept the applicat ion.” 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 CitiMo rtgage postponed the foreclosure for (more than) 60 days and did not foreclose un til after denying plaintiff’s loan modification application. The superior court granted defendants’ mo tion. The court agreed that plaintiff’s claims lacked merit because the undisputed facts showed that C itiMortgage foreclosed

“ after reviewing and denyi ng Plaintiff’s loan modificati on [application].” The court entered judgment in favor of defenda nts, and plaintiff timely appealed. On appeal, plaintiff argues, as he did in the trial court, that CitiMortgage’s “ongoing request for loan modification do cuments up until the eve of foreclosure represented [an] existing clear and unambigu ous promise that [the] loan modification was still in progress.” (Bold omitted.) We ar e not persuaded. For example, plaintiff cites evidence that CitiMortgage was reques ting documents on Octo ber 5 and 6, 2011, when the loan modification application wa s undisputedly still pending. He cites no evidence that CitiMortgage re quested additional documents after October 10 and 12 (when the application was denied) or afte r 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 hersel f informed him that “the fo reclosure was going to take place,” but he does not explai n how that point could be relevant. The undisputed4 evidence shows that CitiMor tgage denied the loan modification application and repeatedly informed pl aintiff 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. Respondent s shall recover their costs of appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

ROTHSCHILD, P. J. We concur:

CHANEY, J.

MILLER, J. 

4 Plaintiff also contends that CitiMortg age’s servicing note s 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 th e relevant documents, but he does not cite the notes themselves. We conclude that th e 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.