Marentes prior to approving the Ygrene Loan

Share This:

Marentes prior to approving the Ygrene Loan

The proceeds from the Ygrene Loan were supposed to be used for energy efficient upgrades to the Property, including a solar system

· “As a result of the Ygrene Loan, Ygrene obtained a lien secured by the Property in senior position to Anchor’s Deed of Trust. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that no solar system was installed. ” (Id. at ¶ 28.)

· “Smart Solar and/or Maldonado hired Defendant Luis Meza Marentes, d/b/a Marentes Construction, to perform the solar installation work at the Property, using the Ygrene Loan proceeds. Mr. Marentes is a licensed contractor (License No. 961891). He has received a number of violations from the Contractors State License Board throughout the years, including but not limited to contracting with nonlicensees, failure to secure workers compensation coverage, employing non-registered salespersons and misusing his contractor’s license. His license was previously suspended. Although Mr. Marentes was disclosed to Ygrene as the contractor who would perform the solar installation work at the Property, it is unclear whether Ygrene took any steps at all to vet Mr. ” (Id. at ¶ 29.)

· “[R]ather than disburse the funds from the Ygrene Loan to Mr. Marentes in phases, as the Best Practice Guidelines suggest, Ygrene instead made a lump sum disbursement to Smart Solar. The end result of Ygrene’s conduct with respect to the Ygrene Loan was that the money was not used to enhance the value of the Property with a solar system, the money was taken by Maldonado and Marentes, and Plaintiff was left with a junior lien to Ygrene’s now senior $116, lien mere months after the Anchor Loan was made.” (Ibid.)

· “Plaintiffs, as mortgage lenders were the first ones to be directly impacted by the impairment of their interest created by after-acquired priority liens that easy money payday loan Cordova were entered into without their knowledge, or consent in direct violation of the provisions of the Deeds of Trust. As such, direct harm to Plaintiffs was foreseeable and actual injury has been established since the resulting harm was the impairment to Plaintiffs’ interests in the Property.” (Id. at ¶ 64.)

Third, the Court finds that Plaintiff has adequately alleged damages that are not speculative, but rather are certain. Plaintiff alleges that it suffered damages in excess of the $380, that it was forced to pay when it foreclosed on the Property. (SAC, ¶¶ 38, 66.)

Fourth, the Court finds that Plaintiff has properly alleged that Defendant’s conduct in facilitating Defendant Maldonado’s fraud is closely related to Plaintiff’s injury. In addition to the allegations in paragraphs 27-29 of the SAC set forth above, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s “numerous omissions, disregard for the Guidelines and their own policies and procedures allowed Smart Solar and/or Maldonado to perpetrate their fraudulent scheme with relative ease.” (SAC, ¶ 64.)

Fifth, Plaintiff sufficiently alleges that the moral blame rests with Defendant. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is morally culpable due to its “failure to apply basic safeguards,” described in paragraphs 27-29 of the SAC, “that would have prevented the fraud from taking place.” (SAC, ¶ 64.)

Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Ygrene did not take any steps to inspect the Property and/or ensure that the energy efficient upgrades that its loan was intended to fund were actually made

Lastly, Plaintiff sufficiently alleges that policy considerations advocate in favor of imposing a duty in this case. Plaintiff alleges that:

“[T]he policy of preventing future harm is apparent in this case. Since energy efficiency is the trend of the future, the policy from preventing this kind of disastrous situation from reoccurring is strong. Through their carelessness, PACE Lenders have allowed individuals like Maldonado to perpetrate her scheme against the subject Property and other properties throughout the State of California. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege that fraudulent schemes are rampant in Los Angeles County and in California, as a whole, and that Defendants’ negligence and tendency to ‘look the other way’ is motivated by the high fees they collect on the front end of the loans, as well as the above-average interest rate of PACE loans.” (SAC, ¶ 64.)