De Jong v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC
- Jon Tigar
- 4:24-cv-00622
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In De Jong v. Nationstar, Judge Tigar granted Nationstar summary judgment because a 2020 settlement barred the lawsuit and denied De Jong leave to amend.
Mark De Jong and Nationstar Mortgage LLC; the ruling granted Nationstar judgment based on the 2020 settlement agreement and denied De Jong permission to add a new claim.
What happened
In De Jong v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, Mark De Jong challenged Nationstar’s handling of his mortgage through four California-law claims. The parties had settled an earlier lawsuit in 2020, agreeing that De Jong would reinstate or pay off the loan by November 30, 2020, or consent to foreclosure and waive defenses challenging it.
De Jong argued that Nationstar had given up its right to enforce the settlement by placing the loan in forbearance and that Nationstar’s alleged misconduct made enforcement unfair. The court rejected both arguments, finding no evidence that Nationstar had waived the agreement or prevented De Jong from meeting its payment condition. The court also denied De Jong’s request to add a new claim.
Judge Jon S. Tigar granted Nationstar’s motion for summary judgment, did not reach the parties’ remaining arguments about the merits of De Jong’s claims, directed the Clerk to enter judgment, and closed the file.
The detailed version
- De Jong v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC · No. 4:24-cv-00622
- Jon Tigar
- May 12, 2025
Background
Mark De Jong and Manuela De Jong obtained a mortgage in June 2007, and Nationstar began servicing the loan on July 1, 2013. The borrowers defaulted in 2015, and De Jong filed an earlier lawsuit against Nationstar. While a motion to dismiss was pending, the borrowers agreed to and were approved for a loan modification in December 2017, and De Jong voluntarily dismissed that lawsuit.
The borrowers defaulted again in
- The May 2019 payment remained due, and no payments were made after June
- De Jong filed another lawsuit in February
- The parties resolved that case through an agreement placing the loan in forbearance until November 30, 2020, while stating that De Jong remained liable for the payments and other obligations under the loan documents. The agreement provided that if De Jong did not reinstate or completely pay off the loan by that date, he would acknowledge the default, consent to foreclosure, and waive rights and defenses challenging the default, foreclosure process, or sale.
The forbearance was later extended through November 2021. De Jong submitted five loan-modification applications, including one during this case; each was denied. He filed a third lawsuit in June 2022 and voluntarily dismissed it on December 8, 2023. He filed this case in state court twelve days later, and Nationstar removed it to federal court.
The complaint asserted four claims: violation of California Civil Code section 2923.7, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law under California Business and Professions Code section 17200 and following. Nationstar moved for summary judgment on all claims. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.
Settlement Agreement
Nationstar argued that the 2020 settlement agreement barred De Jong’s lawsuit. De Jong did not dispute the agreement or its terms. He argued instead that Nationstar waived enforcement by placing the loan in forbearance for a year and that Nationstar could not use the settlement agreement to shield itself from its own misconduct.
The court rejected the waiver argument. Under the contract-law standard the court applied, the party opposing enforcement must show by clear and convincing evidence that the other party knew of a contractual right and intentionally gave it up. The court found that the agreement did not require Nationstar to begin foreclosure immediately and did not prevent Nationstar from working with De Jong to try to avoid foreclosure. The court also noted that De Jong cited no authority, and the court found none, supporting the view that those actions showed an intent to abandon the contractual right to enforce the agreement.
The court also rejected De Jong’s argument that Nationstar’s conduct made enforcement inequitable. The court explained that De Jong presented no evidence that Nationstar prevented him from reinstating or paying off the mortgage before November 30, 2020. De Jong did not present evidence that he had reinstated or completely paid off the loan by that date and agreed that the last payment applied to the loan was made in June 2019. He also did not dispute that he filed this lawsuit to stop foreclosure.
The court therefore concluded that the 2020 agreement was valid and enforceable and barred the lawsuit. It granted Nationstar summary judgment on that basis and expressly stated that it did not reach the parties’ remaining arguments concerning the merits of De Jong’s claims.
Request to Amend
De Jong asked for permission to amend his complaint to add a claim under California Civil Code section 2923.6. The court had previously set May 17, 2024, as the deadline to amend the pleadings and had explained that a later request required a showing of good cause. Because De Jong did not attempt to show diligence, the court denied his request for leave to amend.
Disposition
The court granted Nationstar’s motion for summary judgment. It denied De Jong’s request for leave to amend, directed the Clerk to enter judgment, and ordered the file closed.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.