California Codes

Cal. Civil Code § 2923.6 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)The Legislature finds and declares that any duty mortgage servicers may have to maximize net present value under their pooling and servicing agreements is owed to all parties in a loan pool, or to all investors under a pooling and servicing agreement, not to any particular party in the loan pool or investor under a pooling and servicing agreement, and that a mortgage servicer acts in the best interests of all parties to the loan pool or investors in the pooling and servicing agreement if it agrees to or implements a loan modification or workout plan for which both of the following apply:

(1)The loan is in payment default, or payment default is reasonably foreseeable.

(2)Anticipated recovery under the loan modification or workout plan exceeds the anticipated recovery through foreclosure on a net present value basis.

(b)It is the intent of the Legislature that the mortgage servicer offer the borrower a loan modification or workout plan if such a modification or plan is consistent with its contractual or other authority.

(c)If a borrower submits a complete application for a first lien loan modification offered by, or through, the borrower’s mortgage servicer at least five business days before a scheduled foreclosure sale, a mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall not record a notice of default or notice of sale, or conduct a trustee’s sale, while the complete first lien loan modification application is pending. A mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall not record a notice of default or notice of sale or conduct a trustee’s sale until any of the following occurs:

(1)The mortgage servicer makes a written determination that the borrower is not eligible for a first lien loan modification, and any appeal period pursuant to subdivision (d) has expired.

(2)The borrower does not accept an offered first lien loan modification within 14 days of the offer.

(3)The borrower accepts a written first lien loan modification, but defaults on, or otherwise breaches the borrower’s obligations under, the first lien loan modification.

(d)If the borrower’s application for a first lien loan modification is denied, the borrower shall have at least 30 days from the date of the written denial to appeal the denial and to provide evidence that the mortgage servicer’s determination was in error.

(e)If the borrower’s application for a first lien loan modification is denied, the mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall not record a notice of default or, if a notice of default has already been recorded, record a notice of sale or conduct a trustee’s sale until the later of:

(1)Thirty-one days after the borrower is notified in writing of the denial.

(2)If the borrower appeals the denial pursuant to subdivision (d), the later of 15 days after the denial of the appeal or 14 days after a first lien loan modification is offered after appeal but declined by the borrower, or, if a first lien loan modification is offered and accepted after appeal, the date on which the borrower fails to timely submit the first payment or otherwise breaches the terms of the offer.

(f)Following the denial of a first lien loan modification application, the mortgage servicer shall send a written notice to the borrower identifying the reasons for denial, including the following:

(1)The amount of time from the date of the denial letter in which the borrower may request an appeal of the denial of the first lien loan modification and instructions regarding how to appeal the denial.

(2)If the denial was based on investor disallowance, the specific reasons for the investor disallowance.

(3)If the denial is the result of a net present value calculation, the monthly gross income and property value used to calculate the net present value and a statement that the borrower may obtain all of the inputs used in the net present value calculation upon written request to the mortgage servicer.

(4)If applicable, a finding that the borrower was previously offered a first lien loan modification and failed to successfully make payments under the terms of the modified loan.

(5)If applicable, a description of other foreclosure prevention alternatives for which the borrower may be eligible, and a list of the steps the borrower must take in order to be considered for those options. If the mortgage servicer has already approved the borrower for another foreclosure prevention alternative, information necessary to complete the foreclosure prevention alternative.

(g)In order to minimize the risk of borrowers submitting multiple applications for first lien loan modifications for the purpose of delay, the mortgage servicer shall not be obligated to evaluate applications from borrowers who have been evaluated or afforded a fair opportunity to be evaluated consistent with the requirements of this section, unless there has been a material change in the borrower’s financial circumstances since the date of the borrower’s previous application and that change is documented by the borrower and submitted to the mortgage servicer.

(h)For purposes of this section, an application shall be deemed “complete” when a borrower has supplied the mortgage servicer with all documents required by the mortgage servicer within the reasonable timeframes specified by the mortgage servicer.

(i)Subdivisions (c) to (h), inclusive, shall not apply to entities described in subdivision (b) of Section 2924.18.

(j)This section shall apply only to mortgages or deeds of trust described in Section 2924.15.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 112 cases (33 in the last 5 years), 2009–2025 · leading case: Rockridge Trust v. Wells Fargo, N.A., 985 F. Supp. 2d 1110 (N.D. Cal. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Rockridge Trust v. Wells Fargo, N.A., 985 F. Supp. 2d 1110 (N.D. Cal. 2013). · cites it 10× “5 does not apply to Plaintiffs’ deed of trust, nor does it create a right to a loan modification or have any effect on a completed foreclosure sale; (2) California Civil Code § 2923.6 does not require a lender to give a borrower a loan modification; (3) California Civil Code §…”

Cornejo v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 151 F. Supp. 3d 1102 (E.D. Cal. 2015). · cites it 6× “, ¶¶ 26, 28) Thus, Plaintiffs assert the sale was completed while their “complete application for loan modification was pending a determination on acceptance or denial, in-violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 2923.6 .” (Id. at 13, ¶ 30) IV.”

Nool v. HomeQ Servicing, 653 F. Supp. 2d 1047 (E.D. Cal. 2009). · cites it 7× “; (2) California Civil Code § 2923.6; (3) the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.”

Runaj v. Wells Fargo Bank, 667 F. Supp. 2d 1199 (S.D. Cal. 2009). · cites it 6× “The complaint alleges violations of California Civil Code Section 2923.6; the federal Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.”

Penermon v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 47 F. Supp. 3d 982 (N.D. Cal. 2014). · cites it 5× “17; (3) Violation of Cal. Civ.Code § 2923.6; (4) Violation of Cal.”

Intengan v. BAC Home Loans Servicing LP, 214 Cal. App. 4th 1047 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “Her allegations as to Civil Code section 2923.6 are unavailing, but her allegation as to Civil Code section 2923.”

Majd v. Bank of Am., N.A., 243 Cal. App. 4th 1293 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “) It currently provides, “A mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall not record a notice of default or notice of sale or conduct a trustee’s sale until any of the following occurs: [¶] (1) The mortgage servicer makes a written determination…”

Alvarez v. Bag Home Loans Servicing, L.P., 228 Cal. App. 4th 941 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “, CAL.CIV.CODE § 2923.6 (encouraging lenders to offer loan modifications to borrowers in appropriate circumstances); see also, Press Release at http://gov.”

Hamilton v. Greenwich Investors XXVI, LLC, 195 Cal. App. 4th 1602 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “) Civil Code section 2923.6 states in pertinent part: “(a) The Legislature finds and declares that any duty servicers may have to maximize net present value under their pooling and servicing agreements is owed to all parties .”

Shupe v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, 231 F. Supp. 3d 597 (E.D. Cal. 2017). · cites it 3× “A. Violation of California Civil Code § 2923.”

Haynish v. Bank of Am., N.A., 284 F. Supp. 3d 1037 (N.D. Cal. 2018). · cites it 3× “The FAC asserted four claims: violations of the California Homeowner Bill of Rights ("HBOR"), specifically its ban on "dual-tracking" loan modification applications, California Civil Code § 2923.6 1 ; wrongful foreclosure; negligence; and violations of California Business &…”

Pantoja v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 640 F. Supp. 2d 1177 (N.D. Cal. 2009). · cites it 2× “Cal. Civ.Code § 2923.6. The legislation is recently enacted and authority is scarce regarding its meaning.”

Show all 112 citing cases →

— Cal. Civil Code § 2923.6(a) — 1 case

Rockridge Trust v. Wells Fargo, N.A., 985 F. Supp. 2d 1110 (N.D. Cal. 2013). “5 does not apply to Plaintiffs’ deed of trust, nor does it create a right to a loan modification or have any effect on a completed foreclosure sale; (2) California Civil Code § 2923.6 does not require a lender to give a borrower a loan modification; (3) California Civil Code §…”

— Cal. Civil Code § 2923.6(b) — 2 cases

Argueta v. J.P. Morgan Chase, 787 F. Supp. 2d 1099 (E.D. Cal. 2011).

Riggs v. Wells Fargo Bank CA4/3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016).

— Cal. Civil Code § 2923.6(c) — 21 cases

Clinton v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 225 F. Supp. 3d 1168 (E.D. Cal. 2016).

Willis v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 250 F. Supp. 3d 628 (E.D. Cal. 2017).

Badame v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 641 F. App'x 707 (9th Cir. 2016).

Deschaine v. Indymac Mortg. Servs., 617 F. App'x 690 (9th Cir. 2015).

— Cal. Civil Code § 2923.6(c)(2) — 1 case

Alvarez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (E.D. Cal. 2020).

— Cal. Civil Code § 2923.6(f) — 3 cases

Mace v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 252 F. Supp. 3d 941 (N.D. Cal. 2017).

Stephen Meyers v. Freedom Mortg. Corp. (C.D. Cal. 2024).

Cooper v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (N.D. Cal. 2020).

— Cal. Civil Code § 2923.6(g) — 4 cases

Deschaine v. Indymac Mortg. Servs., 617 F. App'x 690 (9th Cir. 2015).

Alvarez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (E.D. Cal. 2019).

Jason Deschaine v. Indymac Mortg. Servs. (9th Cir. 2015).

— Cal. Civil Code § 2923.6(h) — 3 cases

Patera v. Citibank, N.A., 79 F. Supp. 3d 1074 (N.D. Cal. 2015).

Tuan Anh Le v. Bank of New York Mellon, 152 F. Supp. 3d 1200 (N.D. Cal. 2015).

Scheuerman v. PHH Mortg. Corp. (S.D. Cal. 2020).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.