California Codes

Cal. Civil Code § 2924.9 (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)Unless a borrower has previously exhausted the first lien loan modification process offered by, or through, his or her mortgage servicer described in Section 2923.6, within five business days after recording a notice of default pursuant to Section 2924, a mortgage servicer that offers one or more foreclosure prevention alternatives shall send a written communication to the borrower that includes all of the following information:

(1)That the borrower may be evaluated for a foreclosure prevention alternative or, if applicable, foreclosure prevention alternatives.

(2)Whether an application is required to be submitted by the borrower in order to be considered for a foreclosure prevention alternative.

(3)The means and process by which a borrower may obtain an application for a foreclosure prevention alternative.

(b)This section shall not apply to entities described in subdivision (b) of Section 2924.18.

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

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 13 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 2019–2024 · leading case: Scheuerman v. PHH Mortg. Corp. (S.D. Cal. 2020).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Scheuerman v. PHH Mortg. Corp. (S.D. Cal. 2020). · cites it 6× “Violation of California Civil Code § 2924.9 (claim 3) 27 Plaintiffs allege that Defendant PHH, BNA, and PHH violated California Civil Code 28 § 2924.”

Travis v. Amerihome Mortg. Co. LLC (E.D. Cal. 2023). · cites it 3× “Third Cause of Action for Violation of California Civil Code § 2924.9 23 Plaintiff’s third cause of action alleges Defendant violated California Civil Code section 24 2924.”

Gieser v. Freedom Mortg. Corp. (N.D. Cal. 2024). · cites it 3× “) However, in the body of the complaint, Plaintiff does not assert 1 lack of authority to foreclose on property; (3) violation of California Civil Code § 2924.9 for 2 failure to provide homeowner with foreclosure alternatives; (4) negligence; (5) wrongful 3 foreclosure; (6)…”

Lawrence v. Cenlar F.S.B. (E.D. Cal. 2024). · cites it 3× “Count Three: Violation of California Civil Code § 2924.9 25 Plaintiffs’ allege Defendants’ violated California Civil Code § 2924.”

Marasigan v. MidFirst Bank (S.D. Cal. 2023). · cites it 2× “California Civil Code § 2924.9 3 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated California Civil Code § 2924.”

Sheen v. Wells Fargo Bank (Cal. 2022). “) In addition, the servicer is required to apprise the borrower of any foreclosure prevention alternative it offers before foreclosing, cannot foreclose while a modification application is pending (Civ. Code, §§ 2924.9, subd. (a), 2923.6, subd.”

Yoni Majano v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC (C.D. Cal. 2023). “) Majano 18 asserts eight causes of action: (1) violation of California Civil Code section 2923.5 for 19 failure to notify the homeowner about possible foreclosure; (2) violation of California 20 Civil Code section 2924(a)(1) for lack of authority to foreclose on property; 21…”

Orosco v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC (E.D. Cal. 2020). “Plaintiffs’ third claim for violation of California Civil Code section 2924.9 is 9 DISMISSED without leave to amend; 10 4.”

Magdai Vences Arellano v. PHH Mortg. Corp. (C.D. Cal. 2019). “7 ; 3) violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 2924.9 ; 4) violation of Cal.”

Warren v. PNC Bank Nat'l Ass'n (N.D. Cal. 2023). “Cal. Civ. Code § 2924.9 (a). That communication must 11 include certain information: (1) that the borrower may be evaluated for a foreclosure prevention 12 alternative; (2) whether the borrower must submit an application in order to be considered for 13 such; and (3) the means…”

Toye v. Shellpoint Mortg. Servicing (S.D. Cal. 2020). “12 13 Cal. Civ. Code § 2924.9 . 14 Plaintiffs allege Defendants “were required to offer alternatives to foreclosure on 15 behalf of the valid, legal creditor, which Defendants failed to do, and therefore, Defendants 16 are in material violation of Civil Code § 2924.”

Travis v. Amerihome Mortg. Co. LLC (E.D. Cal. 2024). “9; (2) wrongful foreclosure; (3) violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law 4 with a sole predicate violation of California Civil Code § 2924.9; and (4) violation of California 5 Civil Code § 3412.”

Show all 13 citing cases →

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.