Talman v. Barnes

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that plaintiff had stated a claim for negligence based on the plaintiffs’ allegations in that case “that defendants owed them a duty to exercise reasonable care in the review of their loan modification applications once they had agreed to consider them”
• concluding lenders owed homeowners “a duty to exercise reasonable care in the review of their loan modification applications once they had agreed to consider them”
• concluding that California law 27 1 provides for a “duty to use reasonable care in the processing of a loan modification” 2 given the “policy considerations” set forth under the HBOR and “because defendants 3 allegedly agreed to consider modification of the plaintiffs’ loans”
• finding a duty where “defendants allegedly agreed to consider modification of the plaintiffs’ loans”
• servicer has no general duty to offer modification, but a duty does arise when servicer agrees to consider borrower’s application for modification
• \The existence of a legal duty to use reasonable care in a particular factual situation is a question of law for the court to decide.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).