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