Zimmer v. Nawabi
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
566 F. Supp. 2d 1025 (2008)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Tim Nawabi (defendant), an employee of Golden State Financing Corporation (Golden State) (defendant), contacted Glenlyn Zimmer (plaintiff), a 79-year-old woman, about refinancing her mortgage. Nawabi told Zimmer that, if she refinanced, she would receive $29,000 in cash at closing and her monthly mortgage payment would go down to $1,500. At a meeting to sign the mortgage-refinance documents, Nawabi told Zimmer she did not need to read the documents before signing because they were standard forms. After the meeting, Zimmer discovered that the terms in the written mortgage-refinance documents contradicted what Nawabi had promised. Under the written refinance contract, Zimmer would only receive $4,300 at closing and her monthly mortgage payment would increase to $3,300. The refinance terms were worse than her original mortgage’s terms. Zimmer contacted Nawabi to cancel the refinance. However, Nawabi told Zimmer that the actual refinance terms would be what Nawabi had promised, not what was in the refinance documents Zimmer had signed. Based on Nawabi’s promise, Zimmer went through with the closing on the refinanced mortgage loan. However, after the closing, the written terms in the refinance contract were enforced and Zimmer ultimately had to vacate her home to avoid foreclosure. Golden State received over $10,000 in fees from Zimmer related to the refinance. Zimmer sued Nawabi and Golden State for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and financial elder abuse, and moved for summary judgment. Nawabi and Golden State failed to oppose Zimmer’s motion.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Shubb, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.