In 2006, Claudia Aceves obtained from her bank a loan in the amount of $845,000 to buy a house. The loan had an initial interest rate of 6.35 percent. After two years, the rate became adjustable and increased significantly. She could no longer afford the monthly payments on the loan. In March 2008, she received a notice that the bank was going to foreclose on her house. She filed for bankruptcy protection, which posed an automatic stay (i.e., “froze”) on the foreclosure proceedings. When Aceves contacted the bank and was told that once her loan was out of bankruptcy, the bank “would work with her on a mortgage reinstatement and loan modification.” Relying on this representation, Aceves decided to forego a legal process in the bankruptcy court that would have allowed her to reinstate the loan and repay the past due portion over time, while retaining her home. At the same time, the bank requested the bankruptcy court to remove the stay, so it could proceed with the foreclosure. Aceves did not object to that request, assuming that she and the bank were going to resolve things outside the court. The bank, however, scheduled Aceves’s home for public auction before the end of 2008 without allowing Aceves to discuss reinstatement and modification of the loan. When a “negotiator” for the bank did finally contact her on the day before the public auction was scheduled, he told her that the new balance on the loan was nearly $1 million, that the new monthly payment would be nearly twice what it was before she declared bankruptcy, and that she needed to send a $6,500 deposit immediately to avoid the sale. When the negotiator refused to put any of those terms in writing, Aceves rejected the offer. Her house was sold the next day to the bank, which served her a three-day notice to vacate and instituted eviction proceedings against her. Aceves filed suit against the bank, claiming that to her detriment she relied on the promise by the bank that it would work with her. Did she succeed?