JEANETTE K. LANSBURG; LARRY J. ENCINAS, husband and wife v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation; Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEANETTE K. LANSBURG; LARRY J.
ENCINAS, husband and wife,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE
CORPORATION; SAXON MORTGAGE
SERVICES, INC.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-15545
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01529-HRH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
H. Russel Holland, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 9, 2015**
San Francisco, California
Before: SILVERMAN, GOULD, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Jeanette K. Lansburg and Larry J. Encinas (“Plaintiffs”) appeal a summary
judgment entered by the district court on their contract claims against Saxon
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUN 12 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Mortgage Services, Inc. and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291; we vacate and remand.
1. Plaintiffs contend that they entered into a Trial Period Plan (“TPP”) with
Saxon’s predecessor-in-interest that promised an eventual permanent loan
modification, that they complied with the terms of the TPP, but that Saxon
nonetheless refused to permanently modify the loan and foreclosed on their home.
The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that the TPP
did “not guarantee that the lender will provide the borrower with a loan modification
agreement even if the borrower” complied with its terms.
2. In Corvello v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, which involved claims similar to
those here, we held that a lender may be contractually obligated to offer a permanent
loan modification if the borrower complies with the terms of a TPP. 728 F.3d 878,
883–85 (9th Cir. 2013). Because the district court did not have the benefit of our
later opinion when it granted summary judgment in this case, we vacate the
judgment and remand for reconsideration of plaintiffs’ claims in light of Corvello.
VACATED AND REMANDED; each party shall bear its own costs.

-- 2 of 2 --