Purganan v. FCI Lender Services, Inc.
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:24-cv-06192
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Purganan v. FCI Lender Services, Judge Chesney denied a temporary restraining order because Purganan did not show she could pay the loan balance.
Mary Grace Purganan and FCI Lender Services, Inc.; the order directly concerns Purganan’s request to temporarily prevent the trustee’s sale.
What happened
In Purganan v. FCI Lender Services, Inc., Mary Grace Purganan asked the court to temporarily stop a trustee’s sale connected to her loan.
Purganan acknowledged that she was in default but argued that the amount needed to avoid foreclosure was inflated by unlawful default interest and a late-payment penalty. The court said she did not show that she had enough money to pay the balance after subtracting the charges she disputed.
Judge Chesney denied the temporary restraining order. The court did not decide Purganan’s other claims, including whether the balance contained inflated charges; those issues were reserved for a later date.
The detailed version
- Purganan v. FCI Lender Services, Inc. · No. 3:24-cv-06192
- Maxine Chesney
- Sept. 3, 2024
Background
Mary Grace Purganan filed an ex parte application, meaning an application made without the usual advance participation of the opposing party, seeking a temporary restraining order to prevent a trustee’s sale. The court reviewed the complaint, the application, and supporting declarations.
Purganan alleged that the $991,068.89 amount required to avoid foreclosure was overstated because it included unlawful default interest and an unlawful balloon late-payment penalty. She acknowledged that she was in default on the loan. The court found that she had not shown that she had the funds to pay the outstanding balance after excluding the charges she disputed.
Ruling
The court denied the temporary restraining order. Citing the standard for preliminary injunctive relief, the court stated that a party seeking such relief must show, among other things, a likelihood of success on the merits and a likelihood of irreparable harm without relief. The court did not rule at that time on Purganan’s other claims, including her claim that the balance included inflated charges, and reserved those issues for later resolution.
Disposition
The application to prohibit the sale of the property was denied. The opinion does not decide whether the disputed charges were unlawful or whether the balance was actually inflated.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.