Still, I couldn't help but feel a vibe that this is the kind of neat-dealing that one might see from an attorney trying to negotiate a good deal. See if you get the same feeling that I did upon reading the facts:
"Plaintiff owned a property on Tiara Street in Encino,
originally as his principal residence and then, starting in 2008, as
an investment property.
On March 16, 2005, plaintiff obtained a home equity line of
credit from defendant E-Loan, Inc. The line of credit (or loan),
evidenced by a written credit agreement, had a maximum
indebtedness of $245,000, a variable interest rate, and a balloon
payment due on its April 1, 2015 maturity date. The loan was
secured by a second deed of trust on the Encino property. Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A. (not a party) held third and fourth lien
positions, with deeds of trust recorded later in April 2005.
Plaintiff alleges that before he accepted the line of credit,
loan officer Veronica Harmon promised him in a verbal
discussion that the 2005 line of credit “would provide a 10-year
draw or advance period, subject to a balloon payment at
maturity, but [plaintiff] could refinance or re-amortize the loan
into a 20-year amortized, principal and interest repayment
period.” Plaintiff refers to this as the “verbal loan commitment,”
and alleges he would not have entered into the transaction had
he known E-Loan would not honor the verbal loan commitment.
In early 2015, defendant Specialized Loan Servicing LLC
(SLS) began servicing plaintiff’s loan. Plaintiff did not receive
any demand for the balloon payment due on April 1, 2015, and
continued to make monthly payments. Later in 2015, SLS
returned plaintiff’s payments for August, September, and
October 2015.
Plaintiff began active inquiries with SLS in September
2015, and learned SLS had reported to credit bureaus that he
was 60 days late in paying off the loan. Plaintiff submitted a
formal request for loss mitigation assistance from SLS, seeking
“to proceed on the correct loan terms as he understood them,” and
submitted documentation to SLS multiple times in the ensuing
months. . . .
In January 2016, SLS erroneously closed its review of
plaintiff’s loss mitigation request, claiming lack of required
documentation. Plaintiff submitted more documents and
continued to seek assistance from SLS. In August 2016, SLS
offered plaintiff a trial loan modification. Plaintiff rejected this
offer “because it was not in accordance with the terms he was verbally promised” in 2005. Plaintiff then sent SLS an email
reiterating his request for a 20-year amortization on the loan and
removal of any negative credit reporting. He submitted
additional documents in October 2016, and resubmitted them in
January 2017 after being told they could not be located.
In June 2017, plaintiff told SLS he intended to sell the
property, because SLS was unwilling to provide loan terms as in
the verbal loan commitment, and requested removal of the notice
of default. In July, he asked SLS to take a “discounted payoff.”
In August and September, he submitted and resubmitted
documents and further requests for mortgage assistance. . . .
Plaintiff submitted a short sale package to SLS on
October 5, 2017, and SLS requested additional information from
plaintiff over the next several weeks. SLS continued the trustee’s
sale date, and plaintiff believed this was because of the ongoing
discussions. On November 1, 2017, plaintiff received an
October 18, 2017 letter denying plaintiff’s short sale request
because there was sufficient equity in the property to fully pay off
the loan.
The trustee’s sale occurred on November 3, 2017, with no
advance notice to plaintiff. The property was sold to a third party
for $300,000.
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in March 2018."
There's admittedly nothing in there about being a lawyer. But there was something about the plaintiff just continuing to make offers, and continuing to be sure that he could work the system -- even while they're setting up selling the property, and despite the fact that there's equity therein -- that seemed to me to be a classic "lawyer" flaw.
So I looked up the name of the plaintiff: Christopher Reeder. Sure enough: there's an attorney in Los Angeles with that same name. Same middle initial ("S.") as well. Which made me think: Yeah, that's him.
But to be sure, I then looked up the briefs in the case. No mention of the plaintiff being an attorney in the opening or reply briefs. But there it is in the appellee's brief. Right on the first line (which is what you'd expect, no?): "Plaintiff/Appellant Christopher S. Reeder, a seasoned attorney . . . ."
One attribute you've got to have as an attorney is knowing when things just aren't going your way, so it's time to pull the plug. That just didn't happen here. Either in the lawsuit or in the transactions that underlie it.
P.S. - Though Mr. Reeder does seem to pull the plug (or have the plug pulled) vis-a-vis his employment history. From his LinkedIn profile, it seems like he worked for Kern & Wooley as an associate for two years, then as an associate for Kaye Scholer for six years, then was a partner at Lord Bissel for a year and a half, then at Sheppard Mullin for a year and a half, then a partner at Reeder & Wu (presumably he's the "Reeder") for two and a half years, then a partner at Robins Kaplan for seven years, and now he's the principal at "CSReeder" (his name) for the last two years. That's a lot of firms. The mantra of the current firm is -- ironically, given today's opinion -- "Chris Reeder and his team win trials, litigation, and make deals." Though, clearly, some deals, like some litigations, don't work out.
