Debtor owned a home encumbered by 3 liens and filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy and gets a discharge. We know liens survive (“ride through”) a bankruptcy. Eight years passed and debtor markets and sells her home. The Bank makes a demand into escrow to get paid on its claim but due to human clerical error, the Bank submits a demand for $3,000 when it should have been $230,000. Whoops!! Escrow relied on the demand, pays the Bank $3,000 and closes. Debtor got $230,000 from sale proceeds that should have gone to the Bank but for that clerical error. Windfall! Under California law, once escrow closes — then the Bank’s rights and interests under the deed of trusts were instantly and automatically extinguished. So, the Bank’s only Hail Marry pass is to argue the catchall – unjust enrichment!
Bank files a motion to reopen debtor’s case after 8 years to file a complaint to allege a claim for “unjust enrichment” in order to argue that it would be simply wrong (“inequitable” as lawyers say) for debtor to get to keep the all that sale proceeds. Question is — was that “unjust enrichment” cause of action also discharged in debtor’s bankruptcy 8 years ago? [cue suspense music]