Five Claims Against a Private Lender. Three of the Statutes Say They Do Not Apply.
A Carpinteria homeowner sued to stop a September sale. Three of the four statutes exclude lenders servicing seven or fewer California loans.
Every week: one real lawsuit filed against a California private lender, taken apart.
The File
Case: Rodriguez v. Leslie R Brewer Money Purchase Plan
Court: Santa Barbara County Superior Court
Filed: July 29, 2026. The borrower is represented by counsel.
Property: Single-family home in Carpinteria.
Loan: $765,000, recorded January 2023, came due November 2023.
Claims: Four claims under California's foreclosure statutes, plus one unfair business practices claim.
Relief sought: An order stopping the sale, civil penalties, damages, restitution, and costs.
The Timeline
11/9/2021. A different private lender records a $660,000 loan on this house. It comes due in thirteen months.
12/1/2022. That loan comes due.
1/12/2023. The current lender records a $765,000 loan. The new loan comes due in ten months.
1/31/2023. The prior lender’s deed of trust is reconveyed, on payment in full.
11/1/2023. The loan comes due. It is not paid.
1/13/2026. The lender signs the declaration that has to go on record with a Notice of Default.
5/20/2026. The foreclosure trustee records the Notice of Default with that declaration attached. The amount stated to pay the loan off is $1,101,328.23 as of 4/30/2026.
6/24/2026. The borrower alleges a complete loan modification application went to the lender.
7/29/2026. The borrower files this lawsuit, asking the court to stop a trustee’s sale set for 9/11/2026.
No Notice of Trustee’s Sale has been recorded. Three months have to pass after the Notice of Default before one can be, so as of the filing date there was no sale notice on record and none could be.
The Money
$660,000. The prior private loan on this house. Recorded November 2021.
$765,000. The loan now in foreclosure. Recorded January 2023.
$1,101,328.23. What the Notice of Default says it takes to pay the loan off, as of April 30, 2026.
Claim 1: Contact with the borrower before recording (§ 2923.5)
This statute reaches only lenders who service seven or fewer California loans in a year. By suing under it, the borrower has placed this lender in that group.
What the law requires.
Before recording a Notice of Default, the lender has to try to reach the borrower and talk through the options. If the borrower cannot be reached, the attempt has to follow a set order: a first class letter, then three phone calls at different hours on different days, then a certified letter. Thirty days after that, the Notice of Default can be recorded. A declaration goes on record with the notice saying which of three things happened: contact was made, contact was attempted and failed, or no contact was required.
These statutes are written for the mortgage servicer. A private lender who collects the payments on his own loan is his own mortgage servicer, so they reach him directly.
What the borrower alleges.
The borrower alleges she was living at the property, received no mail and no messages, and that the lender refused to communicate with her.
What the record shows.
The lender signed the declaration and checked the box for attempted contact. That declaration has to be attached to the Notice of Default, and the borrower attached it to her own complaint as Exhibit B. The lender signed it on 1/13/2026. The Notice of Default was recorded on 5/20/2026, four months later. The statute sets a minimum of thirty days. The lender waited longer than that, which complies with the statute.
Claim 2: A single point of contact (§ 2923.7)
This statute says it does not apply to a lender who services seven or fewer California loans. That is the same group the borrower’s first claim places this lender in.
What the law requires.
When a borrower asks about alternatives to foreclosure, a large servicer has to name one person or team to handle the file, give the borrower a direct way to reach them, and keep them on the file until the options run out.
What the borrower alleges.
The borrower alleges she asked for a single point of contact when she sent her modification application, and that none was ever assigned.
What the record shows.
The statute says in its own text that it does not reach a lender servicing seven or fewer California residential loans in a calendar year.
Claim 3: Notice of foreclosure alternatives (§ 2924.9)
This statute says the same thing, and it only ever applied to lenders who offer a modification program in the first place.
What the law requires.
Within five business days of recording a Notice of Default, a servicer that offers foreclosure alternatives has to send the borrower a letter saying alternatives exist, whether an application is needed, and how to get one.
What the borrower alleges.
The borrower alleges no such letter arrived.
What the record shows.
The statute says it does not apply to a lender servicing seven or fewer California loans. It also reaches only a servicer that offers foreclosure alternatives. A lender with no modification program has nothing to send.
Claim 4: Foreclosing while a modification application is pending (§ 2923.6)
California has two versions of this rule. Section 2923.6 is the one for large servicers, and it says it does not apply to small ones. Section 2924.18 is the one for small lenders, and the complaint does not use it.
What the law requires.
Under either version, a lender may not record foreclosure documents while a complete modification application is pending, until the borrower gets a written answer on eligibility. The two versions differ in what else is owed. The large servicer version adds an appeal period and a written denial letter. The small lender version requires only the written answer.
What the borrower alleges.
The borrower alleges a complete application went out on 6/24/2026, that no written answer ever came, and that the foreclosure kept moving anyway.
What the record shows.
The version pled says it does not apply to a lender servicing seven or fewer California loans. The application also came five weeks after the Notice of Default was already recorded, so it could not have blocked that recording. Under either version, the lender decides when an application is complete by naming the documents required and the deadline. The complaint does not allege the lender ever requested a document.
Claim 5: Unfair business practices (§ 17200)
This claim repeats the first four. It stands or falls with them.
What the law requires.
A business practice can be challenged as unlawful, unfair, or deceptive. Where the unlawful conduct alleged is a violation of other statutes, this claim depends on those statutes.
What the borrower alleges.
The borrower alleges the lender violated the foreclosure statutes above, made misleading statements about a payoff, and offered modifications without real help.
What the record shows.
The complaint never describes a payoff request anywhere else in its nine pages. Three paragraphs of this claim describe borrowers generally rather than this borrower.
Sections 2923.7, 2924.9 and 2923.6 each say they do not apply to a lender who services seven or fewer California loans a year. Those are Claims 2, 3 and 4.
Claim 4 is the only one that could stop the September sale, and only if the modification application is still sitting unanswered. If the lender already denied it in writing, nothing stops the sale. The complaint does not say, and neither does the record. The other four claims ask for money damages.
The borrower has a larger problem than any of this. One issue defeats all five claims at once, no matter how many loans this lender services. The evidence is three recorded documents, and the complaint never addresses what they show.
🔒 Paid below: the takeaway and four lessons for lenders.
