JEANETTE LANSBURG V. FHLMC/FREDDIE MAC, No. 13-15545 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUN 12 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JEANETTE K. LANSBURG; LARRY J. ENCINAS, husband and wife, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 13-15545 D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01529-HRH Plaintiffs - Appellants, MEMORANDUM* v. FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION; SAXON MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona H. Russel Holland, Senior District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 9, 2015** San Francisco, California Before: SILVERMAN, GOULD, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Jeanette K. Lansburg and Larry J. Encinas (“Plaintiffs”) appeal a summary judgment entered by the district court on their contract claims against Saxon * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Mortgage Services, Inc. and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291; we vacate and remand. 1. Plaintiffs contend that they entered into a Trial Period Plan (“TPP”) with Saxon’s predecessor-in-interest that promised an eventual permanent loan modification, that they complied with the terms of the TPP, but that Saxon nonetheless refused to permanently modify the loan and foreclosed on their home. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that the TPP did “not guarantee that the lender will provide the borrower with a loan modification agreement even if the borrower” complied with its terms. 2. In Corvello v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, which involved claims similar to those here, we held that a lender may be contractually obligated to offer a permanent loan modification if the borrower complies with the terms of a TPP. 728 F.3d 878, 883–85 (9th Cir. 2013). Because the district court did not have the benefit of our later opinion when it granted summary judgment in this case, we vacate the judgment and remand for reconsideration of plaintiffs’ claims in light of Corvello. VACATED AND REMANDED; each party shall bear its own costs. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
