More thoughts and dissection.
This one–the Yvanova decision by the California Supreme Court–was a no-brainer, of course. Had the Court ruled that homeowners cannot challenge a bogus assignment, there would be no point in a bank or other purported holder of California mortgages following the law about assignments at all, because they’d never be challenged. And what would be the result? An absolutely broken system of keeping up with what person owns what property. Which is kinda already the case, but that’s another story.
First, a little background…
Two of the major hallmarks of wrongful, fraudulent foreclosure were present in the Yvanova situation:
1. Zombie assignments: Defunct and/or bankrupt company assigns a mortgage or deed of trust years after said company has been dissolved. In the Yvanova case, New Century was liquidated in 2008 but supposedly assigned Yvanova’s deed of trust to Deutsche Bank in 2011.
2. Closed pools: By…
View original post 1,180 more words
Couple points which have not been addressed, but need to be: 1) The decision is “unpublished” which means it is not “legal precedent” in California (or anywhere else), and 2) if the decision is cited / quoted from in other courts, this is the most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the lower courts in California have to go by the Yvanova decision, but technically they’re not required to since it’s “unpublished”.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or not any court’s decision is “legal precedent” in the given State or federal circuit is VERY important, and an “unpublished” decision only has value in very limited circumstances.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