According to the filing, the couple protected an authentic purchaser, participated in a totally executed purchase arrangement for $3,000,000, opened escrow, and provided the complete post ponement plan to Bank of America, N.A. and MTC Financial Inc., doing business as Trustee Corps, by multiple approaches including carrier and e-mail, on or about December 1, 2025. The sale was then arranged for December 10, 2025.
Instead of hold off, the offenders presumably told the homeowners their contract was “inadequate” because the agreement rate did not match the overall amount owed– a reading the property owners state misapplies the law by importing credit-bid requirements into a borrower-initiated market sale where the statute does not need them.
The conflict did not end there. The filing likewise declares that when the property owners requested the loan’s present reward balance in late January 2026, the defendants took several weeks to respond. In the interim, a potential buyer withdrew, unable to progress without that fundamental maintenance details.
The case raises thirteen causes of action covering both state and federal law. Amongst them are declared offenses of the California Property Owner Expense of Rights, including double tracking and failure to offer a single point of contact, along with claims under RESPA and Regulation X for failing to timely react to servicing details demands. The house owners also declare breach of a 2019 settlement contract that consisted of foreclosure standstill provisions, and intentional disturbance with their efforts to complete a voluntary market sale.
A trustee’s sale was arranged for March 18, 2026, simply one week after the case landed in court. The homeowners are seeking injunctive relief to block the sale, together with declaratory relief, damages, and lawyers’ charges.