Oh what a stupid threat. Technical error? Is that like ministerial clean up? Get a grip dude, the only reason loans were not timely assigned is because they are merely pledged “nemo dat” to the trust until default. Meanwhile, the big boys are using the collateral in rehypothecation deals to beef up their miserable bottom lines. It ain’t no “technicality” – just like these aren’t traditional mortgage loans. These are securities transactions from the onset with no disclosure to the homeowner.
SAN FRANCISCO — The cost to obtain a home loan may go up due to a recent California Supreme Court decision that paves the way for homeowners in default to challenge the validity of their foreclosure, according to a financial industry attorney specializing in lending disputes and real estate.
The California Supreme Court ruled earlier this year in Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corporation that “a home loan borrower has standing to claim a non-judicial foreclosure was wrongful” if the foreclosing party does not have the authority to order a trustee‘s sale.
In 2006, New Century granted Tsvetana Yvanova a $483,000 mortgage. The lender went bankrupt the following year. New Century is said to have pooled, securitized and transferred Yvanova’s mortgage to trustee Western Progressive in 2011. Yvanova subsequently defaulted on her loan, and Western Progressive auctioned her home in 2012.
Yvanova’s lawsuit argues the foreclosure was illegal and void…
View original post 56 more words
Reblogged this on LivingLies.
The California Supreme Court has absolutely no respect for the public interest of being able to track back owners and lienholders in order to present a ‘clear title’ to a subsequent leaseholder to property.
To that end they support case law ruling that deed of trust loans don’t require that the lenders record their interest in the property title when that interest is sold to another party. This denies the ability to the purchaser to honor their promise to protect that clear title so a clear title can be delivered to the successor of the property leasehold by succession or sale.
Furthermore, the ‘technical’ error is a problem because it doesn’t answer the question, ‘well if the transfer to a trust wasn’t completed, then who holds the deed of trust interest that clouds the title?’. You would think someone intelligent enough to become a judge would raise such a question, but then, if 9% of your retirement is based on the banks’ ability to cloud titles in California, silence from the judiciary is golden.
And finally, the judiciary is using the power to delegate which appellate cases may be referenced by others to cover up their undue influence in supporting clouded titles in California. For example, in Kalicki v. JP Morgan, the lower court found that JP Morgan forged a document, recorded it, and presented it as a fraud upon the court; all of which are violations of state law amounting to felonies. The appellate court agreed with the lower court about the criminal activity of JP Morgan, but then deemed the case ‘unpublished’ to prevent other cases from referencing the felonies of Kalicki, because more than a single occurrence of ‘bad behavior’ defines criminal activity instead of merely an instance of ‘bad judgment’.
Curiously enough, in Florida, home of the ‘swamp land deals’, the judiciary is recognizing its mistake and reversing it attitude toward the Wall Street banks in their foreclosing activity that leaves property titles clouded. But then, Florida doesn’t share the California political environment that grants Los Angeles judges extra pay and goes so far as to make their extra pay retroactively legal, in order not to contradict the language of the California state Constitution.