We reserve the right to edit, classify or refuse to publish any material submitted by a comment and/or information provider. While we take every precautionary measure to prevent inappropriate, inflammatory material we cannot rule-out such stray incidents. We request all the users to maintain proper decorum and let us continue and excel in providing this interaction service to our community.
We are a consortium of legal professionals, paralegals and journalists. We are not all attorneys. We do not play one on TV. Nothing in this entire blog should be construed as legal advice. If you need legal advice you should consult an attorney.
PAID ENDORSEMENT DISCLOSURE: In order for us to support the blogging activities, we may receive monetary compensation or other types of remuneration for endorsement, recommendation, testimonial and/or link to any products or services from this blog.
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.
DeadlyClear advocates for transparency and accountability in an effort to preserve the rights guaranteed to the press under the First Amendment and strengthen the public’s right to know.
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate and HarvestRight™ Affiliate we earn from qualifying purchases. If you purchase a product or service with the links we provide, we may receive a small commission. There is no additional charge to you for those associate links and your support helps us to provide free content on our websites.
DeadlyClear® is a product of Project Maui, Inc., a Hawaii corporation. Copyright 2012-2025. All rights reserved.
Deadly Clear 
Couple points which have not been addressed, but need to be: 1) The decision is “unpublished” which means it is not “legal precedent” in California (or anywhere else), and 2) if the decision is cited / quoted from in other courts, this is the most important wording to start with: “In embracing Glaski‘s rule that borrowers have standing to challenge assignments as void, but not as voidable, we join several courts around the nation.”
For all practical purposes, the lower courts in California have to go by the Yvanova decision, but technically they’re not required to since it’s “unpublished”. However, any CA lower court judge should know a ruling that conflicts with the Yvanova decision will be overturned on appeal.
And while the decision is not binding on any court in any State, several States (like NC) have not dealt with the specific issue, and they may find the decision “instructive”. If you read as much case law as I do you’ll occasionally see decisions with language along these lines: “we have not dealt with this issue before, but the supreme court of a sister State has, and we find that court’s ruling instructive.” In other words, the ruling of the other State’s highest court makes good sense to us.
Whether or not any court’s decision is “legal precedent” in the given State or federal circuit is VERY important, and an “unpublished” decision only has value in very limited circumstances. So be careful about “jumping for joy” over a decision that may not be of any value in your particular situation.
_______
Go to http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions-slip.htm and click on published opinions and you will find the Yvanova decision