A $3m deal, a rejected postponement — and a new law hanging in the balance
A newly filed federal case could put California's AB 2424 foreclosure postponement rules to an early test — with Bank of America at the center.
Saeed Ghafoori and Gissou Beykpour Ghafoori, homeowners in Mill Valley, California, brought suit on March 11, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that Bank of America and several co-defendants refused to postpone a trustee's sale of their property despite their timely delivery of a $3,000,000 purchase agreement package under the state's newly enacted postponement mechanism.
At the heart of the dispute is Civil Code Section 2924f(f), as amended by AB 2424, which requires a trustee to postpone a scheduled foreclosure sale when a borrower delivers a qualifying purchase agreement at least five business days before the sale date. The homeowners allege they did exactly that — and were turned away.
According to the filing, the couple secured a bona fide buyer, entered into a fully executed purchase agreement for $3,000,000, opened escrow, and delivered the complete postponement package to Bank of America, N.A. and MTC Financial Inc., doing business as Trustee Corps, by multiple methods including courier and email, on or about December 1, 2025. The sale was then scheduled for December 10, 2025.
Rather than postpone, the defendants allegedly told the homeowners their agreement was "insufficient" because the contract price did not match the total amount owed — a reading the homeowners say misapplies the law by importing credit-bid standards into a borrower-initiated market sale where the statute does not require them.
The dispute did not end there. The filing also alleges that when the homeowners requested the loan's current payoff balance in late January 2026, the defendants took several weeks to respond. In the interim, a prospective buyer withdrew, unable to move forward without that basic servicing information.
The case raises thirteen causes of action spanning both state and federal law. Among them are alleged violations of the California Homeowner Bill of Rights, including dual tracking and failure to provide a single point of contact, as well as claims under RESPA and Regulation X for failing to timely respond to servicing information requests. The homeowners also allege breach of a 2019 settlement agreement that included foreclosure standstill provisions, and intentional interference with their efforts to complete a voluntary market sale.
A trustee's sale was scheduled for March 18, 2026, just one week after the case landed in court. The homeowners are seeking injunctive relief to block the sale, along with declaratory relief, damages, and attorneys' fees.
No court has ruled on the merits, and the allegations remain unproven. But for mortgage servicers and trustees doing business in California, the case surfaces a practical question: how far do AB 2424's postponement obligations actually reach, and what happens when a servicer says no?
The answer could shape how the industry handles these requests going forward.
