Every week: one real lawsuit filed over a California foreclosure, taken apart.
The File
Case: Baldovinos v. Fay Servicing
Court: Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara
Filed: 9/30/2026. Represented by counsel.
Property: Single-family property, Gilroy.
Loan: $310,000 deed of trust, recorded April 2024, matures May 2054.
Claims: 5. Borrower contact, single point of contact, notice of foreclosure alternatives, dual tracking, unfair business practices.
Relief sought: An injunction stopping the trustee’s sale and the recording of a trustee’s deed, damages, a $50,000 civil penalty, restitution.
Exhibits attached: 4. The Deed of Trust, the Assignment, the Notice of Default, the Notice of Trustee’s Sale.
The Timeline
4/9/2024. A $310,000 deed of trust is recorded against the property.
7/1/2025. The installment due this date goes unpaid, per the recorded Notice of Default.
12/12/2025. An assignment of the deed of trust to the current beneficiary is recorded.
5/19/2026. The foreclosure trustee records the Notice of Default. $33,451.25 past due.
8/21/2026. The foreclosure trustee records the Notice of Trustee’s Sale. Sale set for 9/23/2026.
9/17/2026. The borrower alleges she submitted a complete loan modification application and requested a single point of contact.
9/23/2026. The scheduled sale date. The trustee’s published record shows the sale was postponed, and nothing was sold.
9/30/2026. The borrower files this lawsuit. The complaint describes the sale as already held on 9/23/2026 and also pleads a sale date of 11/18/2026.
11/18/2026. The postponed sale date, per the trustee’s published record.
The Money
$310,000. The loan amount, per the recorded deed of trust.
$33,451.25. The amount past due as of May 18, 2026, per the recorded Notice of Default.
$344,442.11. The unpaid balance plus estimated costs when the sale notice published, per the recorded Notice of Trustee’s Sale.
Claim 1. Borrower Contact Before the Notice of Default (§ 2923.5)
The borrower sues under the contact statute written for small servicers. The declaration on the Notice of Default she attached to her own complaint is the large-servicer form.
What the statute requires
Before recording a Notice of Default, the mortgage servicer must contact the borrower to assess her finances and discuss ways to avoid foreclosure, or complete a set of required contact attempts.
The section applies only to small servicers. A larger servicer is covered by § 2923.55, a parallel section with its own contact rules.
What the borrower alleges
The borrower alleges she was living at the property, received no mail and no messages, and that the servicer recorded the Notice of Default without contacting her.
What the record shows
The recorded Notice of Default carries a Declaration of Compliance captioned Civil Code § 2923.55, the large-servicer section. The checked box declares the servicer tried with due diligence to contact the borrower, could not reach her, and waited 30 days or more before recording.
Claim 2. Single Point of Contact (§ 2923.7)
The borrower says she requested a single point of contact on September 17, 2026. She filed this lawsuit thirteen days later.
What the statute requires
When a borrower requests a foreclosure prevention alternative, the servicer must promptly assign a single point of contact: a person or team responsible for the borrower’s file through the process.
The section applies to larger servicers only.
What the borrower alleges
The borrower alleges she requested a single point of contact with her September 17, 2026 modification application and that nobody was assigned. Representatives allegedly told her the file was under review and someone would call within 48 hours, and nobody called back.
What the record shows
The exhibits contain nothing about the application or the request. The only dates come from the complaint itself: the alleged request on September 17, 2026, and this lawsuit on September 30, 2026.
Claim 3. Notice of Foreclosure Alternatives (§ 2924.9)
The statute covers a servicer that offers foreclosure prevention alternatives, and gives it five business days after the Notice of Default records to send a written notice about them. The borrower says nothing arrived.
What the statute requires
Within five business days after recording a Notice of Default, a servicer that offers foreclosure prevention alternatives must send the borrower a written communication describing them and how to apply.
The section applies to larger servicers only.
What the borrower alleges
The borrower alleges that no calls, no messages, and no mail about alternatives to foreclosure arrived after the Notice of Default recorded.
What the record shows
The recorded declaration states the servicer could not reach the borrower by letter or telephone before the Notice of Default. The exhibits contain no correspondence from either side after it.
Claim 4. Dual Tracking (§ 2923.6(c))
The statute protects a complete application submitted at least five business days before a scheduled sale. The complaint’s own dates put the application three business days before it.
What the statute requires
If a borrower submits a complete modification application at least five business days before a scheduled foreclosure sale, the servicer cannot record a Notice of Default or a Notice of Sale, and cannot hold the sale, until it issues a written determination on the application.
“Complete” means the borrower supplied the documents the servicer required, within the timeframes the servicer specified.
What the borrower alleges
The borrower alleges she submitted a complete application on September 17, 2026, that no written determination followed, and that the defendants continued toward the sale.
What the record shows
Both recordings predate the application: the Notice of Default by four months, the Notice of Trustee’s Sale by four weeks. The sale was scheduled for September 23, 2026, and the business days between September 17 and September 23 are September 18, 21 and 22. That is three, not five. The trustee’s published record shows the sale did not run: it was postponed to November 18, 2026.
Claim 5. Unfair Business Practices (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200)
The count repeats the four claims above and adds a demand for restitution. The injury pleaded is lost equity, and the property has not been sold.
What the statute requires
A business practice that is unlawful, unfair or fraudulent. The count here is built on the four claims above.
What the borrower alleges
The borrower alleges the servicer runs a slow loss-mitigation process by design, misled her about the modification, and violated the four sections above. She asks for restitution and disgorgement of profits.
What the record shows
The trustee’s published record shows no sale has been held. No trustee’s deed appears in the record, and title has not changed.
🔒 Paid below: the takeaway and three lessons for lenders.
