(Violation of TILA and Regulation Z arising from Defendants’ Payoff Statement)   (on behalf of the Property Insurance Class)   (Violation of the California Unfair Competition Law,   Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.)  (on behalf of the Facsimile Fee Class)   (Violation of Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code § 1750 et seq.)   (on behalf of the California Property Insurance Class)   23.  On or about November 19, 2009, Plaintiff took out a mortgage, secured by her  residential property, located at 905 Nogales Street in Sacramento (“the Property”), for the  principal amount of $175,986.00 (“the Mortgage”).  The footer of the Mortgage’s Deed of Trust  states it is an “FHA CALIFORNIA DEED OF TRUST—MERS,” which indicates that it  conforms to the servicing requirements established by the United States Department of Housing  and Urban Development.    24.  Section Four of the Mortgage’s Deed of Trust, entitled “Fire, Flood and Other  Hazard Insurance,” requires the Borrower to maintain property insurance, and provides that the  insurance policies “shall be held by Lender and shall include loss payable clauses in favor of,  and in a form acceptable to, Lender.”    25.  Section Four continues:  All or any part of the insurance proceeds may be applied by Lender, at its option,  either (a) to the reduction of the indebtedness under the Note and this Security  Instrument . . . , or (b) to the restoration or repair of the damaged Property . . . .  Any excess insurance proceeds over an amount required to pay all outstanding  indebtedness under the Note and this Security Instrument shall be paid to the  entity legally entitled thereto.    69.  Plaintiff repeats the allegations in the above paragraphs as if fully set forth  herein.   70.  Defendant’s failure to account for insurance payments in its payoff statements  has the effect of overstating and exaggerating Plaintiff’s obligation under the Mortgage, and  thus constitutes an “[in]accurate statement of the total outstanding balance that would be  required to pay the consumer’s obligation in full” (12 C.F.R. § 1026.36(c)(3)) and an  “[in]accurate payoff balance” (15 U.S.C. § 1639g).   71.  Consequently, Defendant’s payoff statement is in violation of TILA and  Regulation Z.   72.   Failure to account for insurance payments in payoff statements imposes drastic  consequences upon the recipient Property Insurance Class members, such as Plaintiff.     73.  In many jurisdictions, and under many mortgage agreements, a servicer must  demand from a homeowner that she pay off the mortgage prior to its commencement of a  mortgage foreclosure proceeding.  Additionally, payoff statements often serve as prima facie  evidence in foreclosure proceedings of the amount due.     76.  Plaintiff repeats the allegations in the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   77.  The Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code §1750, et seq. (the  “CLRA”), provides protection for California consumers against unfair, deceptive and unlawful  practices, and unconscionable commercial practices.   78.  Plaintiff and the California Property Insurance Class are “consumers” as defined  by Cal. Civ. Code § 1761(d).   79.  Defendant’s deceptive practice of failing to account for insurance payments in its  payoff, periodic and loan history statements to Plaintiff and the California Property Insurance  Class violates Cal. Civ. Code § 1770(a).  For example, the practice represents that a transaction  confers or involves rights, remedies, or obligations which it does not have or involve, or which  are prohibited by law.  The practice also represents that the subject of a transaction has been  supplied in accordance with a previous representation when it has not.   80.  Plaintiff has been harmed and has suffered an increased cost or burden due to  Defendant’s actions, as described in the above paragraphs.   85.  Plaintiff repeats the allegations in the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   86.  Defendants engaged in unlawful conduct under California Business & Professions  Code § 17200 et seq., by charging a facsimile fee for providing a payoff statement when the  payoff statement was instead sent by first class mail.   87.  Defendant’s conduct is unfair in that it offends established public policy or is  immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, unconscionable, or substantially injurious to  Plaintiff and members of the Facsimile Fee Class.  The harm arising from Defendant’s conduct  outweighs any legitimate benefit Defendant has derived from the conduct.   88.  Defendant’s misrepresentations and omissions are material and likely to mislead a  reasonable consumer.   89.  Plaintiff relied on Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions.   Defendant’s Rights Under the Mortgage to Administer Insurance Proceeds  