In March 2014, plaintiff Barbara Behm, 51, an environmental supervisor at the city of Long Beach and a restorer of Victorian Homes in Angelino Heights, obtained a hard money loan in the sum of approximately $1.2 million from Cervenka and Lukes Mortgage Corp., a mortgage broker. The loan was secured by a property that Behm owned, which was located at 801 East Edgeware Road, in the Angelino Heights neighborhood of Los Angeles. However, when she fell behind on two months of payments, a balloon payment went into effect in the summer of 2014, causing her monthly payments to go from $11,000 to $30,000 per month. Cervenka and Lukes ultimately foreclosed on the East Edgeware Road property in September 2014, and John and Samantha Vorzimer purchased the property for $1.6 million in April 2015. Behm sued Cervenka and Lukes Mortgage Corp.; its principals, Jay Cervenka, John R. Lukes, John C. Lukes, John Vorzimer, and Samantha Vorzimer; and a broker, Tobin Koziol. Behm alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted a breach of contract; a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; a breach of fiduciary duty; slander and disparagement of title; predatory lending; fraud and fraud by concealment; and unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business practices under § 17200. Koziol settled out of the case, and the matter continued against the remaining defendants. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that defendants entered into a predatory loan with Behm and that the loan contained a hidden trigger, of which Behm was not aware, that concealed a 24.99 percent default interest rate. Once the higher rate kicked in, Behm’s payments ballooned. Counsel asserted that instead of trying to avoid foreclosure, the defendants recorded a notice of default and had the Vorzimers pose as “would-be rescue lenders.” Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the Vorzimers were favorite clients of the company and that Behm was coaxed into giving a personal tour of her house. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel argued that the foreclosure was a sham designed to allow the Vorzimers to buy Behm’s $3 million property for $1.6 million, stripped of any encumbrances or liens. The plaintiff’s banking and lending practices expert opined that the subject loan was a loan-to-own scheme, whereby the defendants expected Behm to default so that they could foreclose on her property. The expert also opined that the defendants further misclassified the loan as a business purpose loan to avoid the laws of usury and licensure requirements. The defendants denied any wrongdoing, and they contended that there was nothing irregular about the foreclosure process. The defense’s mortgages and real estate lending expert opined that the subject loan was a standard business purpose loan and met all legal requirements. Defense counsel noted that at the time the loan was obtained, Behm was in default to another lender, and had numerous judgments and liens against her East Edgeware Road property. In fact, at the time the loan was obtained from Cervenka and Lukes Mortgage Corp., Behm had previously defaulted on a loan from an institutional lender who had successfully foreclosed on the property, but that Behm continued to live at the East Edgeware property. The property eventually ended up being purchased, at a discounted price, by Behm’s neighbor, who then sold it to Behm’s cousin. Defense counsel contended that Behm’s cousin actually owed the property at the time Behm obtained the March 2014 loan and that Behm largely used the loan monies to pay off her cousin, which permitted her to become the owner again. Defense counsel contended that Behm obtained the loan from the mortgage brokers at an annual interest rate of 9.9 percent and that there was a default interest rate of 24.9 percent in the event that she defaulted on the loan. Cervenka and Lukes Mortgage Corp. then sold the loan to a pool of investors, who held the Behm promissory note secured by the deed of trust against the East Edgeware property. Defense counsel contended that after making three loan payments in August 2014, Behm failed to make any further loan payments. Counsel also contended that in September 2014, Behm tendered a check to the mortgage broker for the months of August and September, but the check bounced because Behm’s bank account had been closed. Behm never tendered any further monies. Defense counsel contended that Cervenka and Lukes Mortgage Corp., on behalf of the pool of investors, recorded a default against Behm on Sept. 18, 2014. Counsel also contended that on the same day, Cervenka and Lukes Mortgage Corp. requested that the Vorzimers purchase the Behm loan from the pool of investors, which the Vorzimers did in or around December 2014. Thus, defense counsel argued that the Vorzimers did not buy the East Edgeware property, but, rather, purchased the Behm note and deed of trust. Counsel contended that as a result, the Vorzimers stood in the shoes of the pool of investors, with Cervenka and Lukes Mortgage Corp. now acting as the loan servicer, so the Vorzimers, with Cervenka and Lukes Mortgage Corp. now acting as their agent, proceeded to foreclosure on Behm’s property. Defense counsel noted that Behm delayed the foreclosure by filing for bankruptcy, which was Behm’s third such bankruptcy. Thus, after Behm’s bankruptcy was dismissed in late April 2015, after Behm failed to file court ordered plans and schedules, and after Cervenka and Lukes Mortgage Corp. obtained relief from the bankruptcy stay, the foreclosure occurred. Defense counsel argued that since there were no bidders at that time, the Vorzimers became the owners of the property and that the Vorzimers were still on the hook for $1.6 million, which was owed to the pool of investors pursuant to a separate loan obligation entered into with them. Defense counsel contended that the subject foreclosure was Behm’s fifth or sixth foreclosure in the last 15 years or so and that Behm has been a defendant in numerous civil lawsuits, which resulted in judgment against her and liens asserted against her property. Counsel also contended that Behm has filed three separate bankruptcies, all of which were dismissed because she failed to file court-ordered schedules and plans. Counsel argued that as a result, Behm has left creditors holding millions in debt that she had owed them., Behm claimed that in the process of renovating her East Edgeware home, she had spent 14 years and hundreds of thousands of dollars earned from other home restorations. She also restored and sold other homes during that time. Thus, Behm sought recovery for the loss of the subject property and for her emotional distress.