Finance and Lending

RHRC strives to help clients protect and manage their financial real estate investments. RHRC understands that real estate investments are significant assets requiring specialized services. Our comprehensive expertise encompasses all aspects of real estate transactions, providing our clients with trustworthy, proven, and reliable real estate financial and investment advice and representation.

RHRC guides our clients through all facets of finance and lending transactions, including acquisition financing and construction loans, security instruments, negotiable instruments, secured and unsecured loans, deeds of trusts, guaranty agreements and other instruments regularly used in institutional and private lending.

RHRC also routinely litigates matters arising out of financial concerns, always with the goal of protecting what is most important to our clients – their financial security.

RHRC is also well versed with matters of collections, receiverships, attachment proceedings, and enforcement of judgments, as well as those issues arising out of the Mortgage Foreclosure Consultant Act and the Home Equity Sales Contracts statutes.


In Re: Aguiar v. Walker, et al., (Santa Clara Superior Court Case No.: 1-04-CV-012791). Successfully defended a claim made by a co-owner in a home that the parties purchased together back in 1986. After 20 years of co-owning the property together, the one co-owner claimed that the other co-owner was a "mortgage foreclosure consultant" as defined by Civil Code § 2945 et seq. and that she should now be entitled to void the original purchase and now become the sole owner of the property. On the eve of trial, RHRC successfully obtained the rarely awarded terminating sanctions which eviscerated nearly the entirety of plaintiff's complaint leaving her with only a small breach of contract claim. After trial, plaintiff lost her breach of contract claim and the defendant/clients prevailed on their counter claims for partition and breach of contract in addition to being awarded prevailing party attorney's fees.

In Re: Mavin Income Fund v. Chang (Sacramento County Superior Court Case #96-AS05978, California Court of Appeal Case #C031484). Represented a lender against a sophisticated apartment owner who allowed property (which served as loan security) to deteriorate, resulting in a judgment in excess of $2.1 million, affirmed on appeal.

In Re: Khan (United States District Court Case #C94-4339 FMS, appeal of Case #91-56128-MM, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California). Represented purchasers of commercial real property against a claim by the seller who carried back part of the purchase price. The property was sold at a foreclosure sale, and the seller sought a personal judgment against the buyers. The Trial Court's finding that the seller was a purchase money vendor and our clients were protected by California's anti-deficiency law was affirmed on appeal.

In Re: Ward v. Fox, et al. (San Mateo County Superior Court Case #413014). Defended a multi-million-dollar mortgage loan company in an action brought by a former principal who sued for alleged breach of an employment agreement. The mortgage loan business cross-complained for breach of promissory notes signed in its favor by the former principal. Successfully negotiated a resolution of the disputes.

In Re: Lee v. Slusher, et al. (Alameda County Superior Court Case No. HG05246095) Defended a mortgage broker who purchased property in lieu of foreclosing on his lien. More than three years after escrow closed, the seller claimed that the buyer failed to pay the full purchase price, and that her signature was forged on the deed. The notary, the escrow officer, and the title company all denied liability. A favorable settlement was reached.

In Re: Morris v. Peecher, et al. (Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG04156682). RHRC successfully settled a fraud action by a widow against her loan broker. Seeking a refinance loan to avoid foreclosure, the widow was told by the loan broker that while she could not qualify for a loan, he could solve her problem if she would transfer title to him. He would then get a loan in his name, let her stay in the property and make payments, and transfer the property back to her when she got a loan in her name. However, instead of transferring the title back to her, the loan broker borrowed money against the property instead. The parties agreed to settle by selling the property, and the client receiver her fair share of the proceeds.

In Re: Vorgias v. Valencia, et al. (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case #CV 790204). In a complex action involving multiple owners of residential property losing money due to high interest rates, represented one owner who sued the other owners for specific performance. Negotiated a settlement whereby our client obtained full title to the property through a buyout and was able to refinance at lower rates.