In Aceves v. U.S. Bank N.A. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 218, a mortgage foreclosure case, the plaintiff filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy shortly after a notice of default and an election to sell under deed of trust was recorded against her property. (Aceves, supra, 192 Cal.App.4th at p. 223.) The plaintiff contacted the bank and was told, "once her loan was out of bankruptcy, the bank 'would work with her on a mortgage reinstatement and loan modification.'" (Ibid.) The bank also filed a motion in the bankruptcy court to lift the stay so it could proceed with the foreclosure. (Ibid.) Although the plaintiff intended to convert her chapter 7 bankruptcy case to a chapter 13 case and rely on the financial resources of her husband to save her home under chapter 13, she did not oppose the bank's motion to lift the stay and decided not to seek bankruptcy relief under chapter 13 in reliance on the bank's promise to work with her to reinstate and modify her loan. (Ibid.) Thereafter, the bank completed the foreclosure sale after the bankruptcy court lifted the stay. (Id. at pp. 223-224.) The Court of Appeal found the plaintiff adequately alleged a claim for promissory estoppel: "As alleged, in reliance on a promise by the bank to work with her in reinstating and modifying the loan, the plaintiff did not attempt to save her home under chapter 13. Yet the bank then went forward with the foreclosure and did not commence negotiations toward a possible loan solution." (Id. at p. 225.) In sum, the plaintiff homeowner filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy because she could not afford to make her mortgage payments. When she contacted her lender, U.S. Bank, plaintiff was told "that, once her loan was out of bankruptcy, the bank 'would work with her on a mortgage reinstatement and loan modification.'" (Id. at p. 223.) The plaintiff intended to convert her case to a Chapter 13 proceeding and, with financial assistance from her husband, cure her default and reinstate her loan. (Id. at pp. 221, 223.) However, U.S. Bank filed a motion to lift the bankruptcy stay. Then, the bank's agent requested permission from plaintiff's counsel to contact plaintiff directly in order to "'explore Loss Mitigation possibilities.'" In response, plaintiff contacted the agent and was told that nobody could speak to her until the automatic stay was lifted. (Id. at p. 223.) Relying on U.S Bank's promise to work with her to reinstate and modify her loan, plaintiff did not convert her case to a Chapter 13 proceeding or oppose the motion to lift the bankruptcy stay. Ultimately, U.S. Bank foreclosed on plaintiff's property. (Id. at pp. 223-224.) The Aceves court found that the plaintiff stated a cause of action for promissory estoppel by alleging the facts summarized above. (Aceves, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at p. 226.) U.S. Bank's agreement to "'work with'" the plaintiff "'on a mortgage reinstatement and loan modification' if she no longer pursued relief in the bankruptcy court" was "a clear and unambiguous promise." (Ibid.) Furthermore, the plaintiff reasonably and foreseeably relied on U.S. Bank's promise, because the opportunity to work with the bank to modify and reinstate the loan was relief that would not have been available if plaintiff had converted her case to a Chapter 13 proceeding. As the court explained, a "bankruptcy court could have reinstated the loan--permitted Aceves to cure the default, pay the arrearages, and resume regular loan payments--but it could not have modified the terms of the loan, for example, by reducing the amount of the regular monthly payments or extending the life of the loan. " (Id. at p. 227.) Thus, the court concluded that "by promising to work with Aceves to modify the loan in addition to reinstating it, U.S. Bank presented Aceves with a compelling reason to opt for negotiations with the bank instead of seeking bankruptcy relief. " (Id. at p. 228.)