3. Claudia Aceves borrowed $845,000 from U.S. Bank to buy a home. Less than two years into the loan, she could no longer afford the monthly payments. The bank notified her that it planned to foreclose on her home. (Repossess and sell the property to recoup the loan amount). The bank offered to modify Aceves’s mortgage if she would forgo bankruptcy. In reliance on the bank’s promise, she agreed. Once she withdrew the filing, however, the bank foreclosed and began eviction proceedings. Aceves filed a suit against the bank for promissory estoppel. Can Aceves succeed in her claim? Why or why not?

The promissory clause applies to just the requirement that although no attorney seems to be legal, a commitment is actionable. This happens whenever the Promiser already made that commitment to something like the Promisee who performs mostly on commitment.

Aceves having operated throughout the specific situation mostly on the foundation of the Bank's commitment or withdrew its complaint. Therefore in this circumstance, the essential requirement that perhaps the promisee would have focused mostly on promiser is accomplished.
Consecration of promise to pay estoppels is founded on either the ideals of equity as well as justice. The lender's action was unreasonable to Aceves and because of that, the premise would be effective on either the bank as to when the applicant was working on a pledge basis. Thus Aceves will be accurate in her argument.