Zdzislaw Maslanka wrote paid in full on a mortgage payment check, and then sued for quiet title in 2011. He kept his loan payments current, though. He named as defendants his home loan creditor, Wells Fargo, and the loan originator Embrace, who had sold WF the loan soon after closing. Maslanka didn’t fare well in the litigation, so he hired Neil Garfield to soup up and manage the case, and to show those bumpkins how a real pro handles things.
Garfield hosed his client as you will read in the case documents, specifically, the court’s orders granting of the Embrace and Wells Fargo motions to dismiss the final amended complaint, the appellate docket, and Embrace’s appellate reply brief showing Garfield’s complaints as cut-and-paste, jibberish-filled lunacy.
The creditors’ attorneys rightly called the effort an abuse of the judicial process, complaining as follows about Garfield’s 5th amended complaint:
The trial judge dismissed the complaints for failure to state a claim for which the court could grant relief. In a 12 May 2016 decision, the appellate panel affirmed without comment, and it awarded unconditional attorney fees to the creditors. Maslanka told me that they did not press him to pay those fees. He should have sued Garfield for legal malpractice.
See the main case documents zipped for easy download. If you prefer more torture, access the rest of the trial documents for Case CACE11028853.
In fairness, maybe I’m too harsh on Neil Garfield. Maybe he did his best for Maslanka, or maybe Maslanka forced him to lodge those inane arguments that I have complained against for years. And maybe Garfield has reformed since he wrote that 5th amended complaint.
But if Garfield did that on his own, he deserves severe discipline by the Florida Bar, in my humble opinion, for he just made Maslanka look like a fool. And that makes Garfield a Bozo in my book.
In his LivingLies Blog entry of 2016-04-27, Foreclosure Pretender Defender and Kool-Aid Drinker Neil Garfield wrote this, correct for a change:
“… you need a thorough analysis of everything that happened with your alleged loan and a careful examination of the pleadings if you are already in court. We readily understand the reluctance to spend more money on what has been a frustrating experience, but the ONLY way you can select a strategy that will or might get traction is by having an experienced eye do a thorough review and report.”
Garfield FAILS to tell his readers that he and his crew don’t have a clue about doing mortgage examinations. They only do securitization and forensic loan audits, not full-bore examinations. And because Garfield has spouted bogus legal theories for years, THOUSANDS of people have lost their homes to foreclosure by relying upon his advice.
So DON’T rely upon it. Instead, rely upon the court opinions that I have cited in the Articles section of this site. They prove nearly everything Garfield promotes is a band-aid, at best.
The ONLY reliable place to get a comprehensive mortgage examination that finds all the ways a borrower got injured in the loan is at Mortgage Attack.
Go to the Contact page in the MortgageAttack.com site menu and explain your situation. Then submit the form. The Mortgage Attack Maven will show you exactly how to get a comprehensive mortgage examination AND how to use it for best results.
If you feel time pressure, call 727 669 5511 RIGHT NOW.
For nearly a year and a half, Neil Garfield has expounded on the meaning of the US Supreme Court’s January 2015 Jesinoski opinion regarding TILA rescission. By and large, he is dead wrong. He has encouraged readers of his LivingLies blog to buy his apparently worthless TILA Rescission Package. He has told readers to submit TILA rescission letters regarding purchase money loans (not qualified for TILA rescission), He has told them to submit letters years after the expiration of the TILA statute of repose. And his minions on his blog spread his nonsensical opinions in their comments. And worst of all, he deletes dissenter postings from his blog and terminates their posting privilege because they post case law showing what an idiot or charlatan Garfield is.
Readers can now read court opinions, collected in one place, that utterly destroy Garfield’s ridiculous and nonsensical TILA rescission theories.
Take some of your valuable time and review the opinions so you will know first hand that Garfield is full of beans, and you won’t fall prey to his bogus legal theories.
Our Mortgage Examiner saw the California Yvanova case as much ado about nothing. The borrower, Yvanova, sued for wrongful foreclosure because she discovered that the lender New Century Mortgage had, in bankruptcy, wrongfully assigned her note to a securitizer rather than allowing the bankruptcy liquidation trustee do it. That meant the securitization trust had no rightful ownership of the note and therefore no authority to foreclose. The California supremes supported her right to challenge the foreclosure for that reason.
Thus, despite expounding on the issues for 30 pages, the Yvanova opinion simply stands for the unremarkable and largely undisputed proposition that a borrower can sue for wrongful foreclosure where the transaction by which the beneficiary acquired the loan became void from its inception.
The California Supreme Court clarified the only issue before it. The court opined that in a lawsuit for wrongful foreclosure on a deed of trust securing a home loan, the borrower has standing to challenge a creditor’s void assignment of the note and deed of trust to a successor creditor who successfully foreclosed the loan.
The Yvanova case has gone back to trial court to deal with the issue of the impact of the void assignment on the foreclosure. Tsvetana Yvanova has assured me I don’t understand her case well enough to predict the outcome. Nevertheless, I have predicted that in the end, the court will uphold the foreclosure sale of Yvanova’s property for failure to pay timely.
Likewise, borrowers’ counsel, and some in the financial industry, have misconstrued the Court’s narrow holding by reading more into it than it contains. They seem to think that the borrower ought to have standing to challenge a defective assignment or a violation of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, even thought it does not injure or benefit the borrower, andthe borrower never became a party to it.
Recently, California’s 4th District Court of Appeals, in Saterbak v. JPMCB, addressed what the Yvanova courts did not. It thereby put to rest many of the specious legal theories that borrowers use in an effort to welch on their home loan and get a free house. Notice from the opinion, which I have shown below, how the Court keeps going back to the language of the contract .
Borrowers can win setoffs, settlements, and damage awards by attacking the contract, NOT by attacking the foreclosure.
Notice key text in bold typeface.
Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California.
Laura SATERBAK, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., as Trustee, etc., Defendant and Respondent.
Decided: March 16, 2016
Law Offices of Richard L. Antognini and Richard L. Antognini, Lincoln, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Bryan Cave, Glenn J. Plattner and Richard P. Steelman, Jr., Santa Monica, for Defendant and Respondent.
Laura Saterbak appeals a judgment dismissing her first amended complaint (FAC) after the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend. Saterbak claims the assignment of the deed of trust (DOT) to her home by Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) to Structured Asset Mortgage Investment II Trust 2007–AR7 Mortgage Pass–Through Certificates 2007–AR7 (2007–AR7 trust or Defendant) was invalid. Arguing the assignment occurred after the closing date for the 2007–AR7 trust, and that the signature on the instrument was forged or robo-signed, she seeks to cancel the assignment and obtain declaratory relief. We conclude Saterbak lacks standing and affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In April 2007, Saterbak purchased real property on Mount Helix Drive, La Mesa, California through a grant deed. She executed a promissory note (Note) in May 2007, in the amount of $1 million, secured by the DOT. The DOT named MERS as the beneficiary, “solely as nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns.” It acknowledged MERS had the right “to exercise any or all of those interests, including, but not limited to, the right to foreclose and sell the Property.”
On December 27, 2011, MERS executed an assignment of the DOT to “Citibank, N.A. as Trustee for [2007–AR7 trust].” The assignment was recorded nearly a year later, on December 17, 2012. It is this assignment that Saterbak challenges. The 2007–AR7 trust is a real estate mortgage investment conduit (REMIC) trust; its terms are set forth in a pooling and servicing agreement (PSA) for the trust, which is governed under New York law. Pursuant to the PSA, all loans had to be transferred to the 2007–AR7 trust on or before its September 18, 2007, closing date.
Saterbak fell behind on her payments. On December 17, 2012, Citibank N.A. substituted and appointed National Default Servicing Corporation (NDS) as trustee under the DOT. The substitution of trustee form was executed by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (hereafter Chase) as attorney-in-fact for Citibank N.A., trustee for the 2007–AR7 trust. NDS recorded a notice of default on December 17, 2012. By that point, Saterbak had fallen $346,113.99 behind in payments. On March 19, 2013, NDS recorded a notice of trustee’s sale, scheduling a foreclosure sale for April 10, 2013. By that point, Saterbak owed an estimated $1,600,219.13.1
Saterbak filed suit in January 2014. She alleged the DOT was transferred to the 2007–AR7 trust four years after the closing date for the security, rendering the assignment invalid. She further alleged the signature on the assignment document was robo-signed or a forgery. She sought to cancel the assignment as a “cloud” on her title pursuant to Civil Code 2 section 3412. She also sought declaratory relief that the same defects rendered the assignment void.
In May 2014, the trial court sustained Chase’s demurrer. It held Saterbak lacked standing to sue based on alleged noncompliance with the PSA for 2007–AR7 trust because she did not allege she was a party to that agreement. The court granted Saterbak leave to amend to plead a different theory for cancellation of the DOT.
Saterbak filed the FAC in May 2014. The FAC asserted the same causes of action for cancellation of the assignment and declaratory relief premised on the same theories of untimely securitization of the DOT and robo-signing. The FAC claimed it did not “seek to challenge ․ any Foreclosure Proceedings and or Trustee’s Sale.”
Chase demurred and requested judicial notice of the following instruments: the DOT, the corporate assignment DOT, substitution of trustee, notice of default, and notice of trustee sale. The trial court granted Chase’s request for judicial notice and sustained its demurrer. The court held, “Despite the arguments made by Plaintiff, the FAC does, in fact, allege that the assignment is void because the loan was not moved into the securitized trust in a timely manner.” As it had previously, the court held Saterbak lacked standing to sue based on alleged noncompliance with the PSA, as she was not a party to that agreement. The court also rejected Saterbak’s robo-signing theory for lack of standing, stating she had not alleged that she “relied” on the assignment or sustained injury from it. The court denied leave to amend, noting the FAC was Saterbak’s second attempt and concluding there was no possibility she could remedy her standing deficiencies through amendment.
The court entered judgment for Chase in August 2014, and Saterbak timely appealed.
“On appeal from a judgment of dismissal entered after a demurrer has been sustained, this court reviews the complaint de novo to determine whether it states a cause of action. [Citation.] We assume the truth of all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.” (Folgelstrom v. Lamps Plus, Inc. (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 986, 989–990.) We may consider matters that are properly judicially noticed. (Four Star Electric, Inc. v. F & H Construction (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1375, 1379.)
“If the trial court has sustained the demurrer, we determine whether the complaint states facts sufficient to state a cause of action. If the court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, as here, we must decide whether there is a reasonable possibility the plaintiff could cure the defect with an amendment. [Citation.] If we find that an amendment could cure the defect, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion and we reverse; if not, no abuse of discretion has occurred. [Citation.] The plaintiff has the burden of proving that an amendment would cure the defect.” (Schifando v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1074, 1081.)
Central to this appeal is whether as a borrower, Saterbak has standing to challenge the assignment of the DOT on grounds that it does not comply with the PSA for the securitized instrument. For the reasons discussed below, the trial court properly sustained Defendant’s demurrer to the FAC without leave to amend.
A. Saterbak Bears the Burden to Demonstrate Standing
“Standing is a threshold issue, because without it no justiciable controversy exists.” (Iglesia Evangelica Latina, Inc. v. Southern Pacific Latin American Dist. of the Assemblies of God (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 420, 445.) “Standing goes to the existence of a cause of action.” (Apartment Assn. of Los Angeles County, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 119, 128.) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 367, “[e]very action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest, except as otherwise provided by statute.”
Saterbak contends the 2007–AR7 trust bears the burden of proving the assignment in question was valid. This is incorrect. As the party seeking to cancel the assignment through this action, Saterbak “must be able to demonstrate that ․ she has some such beneficial interest that is concrete and actual, and not conjectural or hypothetical.” (Holmes v. California Nat. Guard (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 297, 315.)
Saterbak’s authorities do not suggest otherwise. She cites Fontenot, but that case actually held “MERS did not bear the burden of proving a valid assignment”—instead, “the burden rested with plaintiff affirmatively to plead facts demonstrating the impropriety.” (Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 256, 270 (Fontenot ), disapproved on other grounds in Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp. 62 Cal.4th 919, 939, fn. 13 (Yvanova ).) Saterbak also cites Cockerell and Neptune, but those cases merely held that an assignee who files suit to enforce an assigned right bears the burden of proving a valid assignment. (Cockerell v. Title Ins. & Trust Co. (1954) 42 Cal.2d 284, 292; Neptune Society Corp. v. Longanecker (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 1233, 1242.)
B. Saterbak Lacks Standing to Challenge the Assignment
Saterbak alleges the DOT was assigned to the 2007–AR7 trust in an untimely manner under the PSA. Specifically, she contends the assignment was void under the PSA because MERS did not assign the DOT to the 2007–AR7 trust until years after the closing date. Saterbak also alleges the signature of “Nicole M. Wicks” on the assignment document was forged or robo-signed.
Saterbak lacks standing to pursue these theories. The crux of Saterbak’s argument is that she may bring a preemptive action to determine whether the 2007–AR7 trust may initiate a nonjudicial foreclosure. She argues, “If the alleged ‘Lender’ is not the true ‘Lender,’ ” it “has no right to order a foreclosure sale.” However, California courts do not allow such preemptive suits because they “would result in the impermissible interjection of the courts into a nonjudicial scheme enacted by the California Legislature.” (Jenkins v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 497, 513 (Jenkins ), disapproved on other grounds in Yvanova, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 939, fn. 13; see Gomes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1149, 1156 (Gomes ) [“California’s nonjudicial foreclosure law does not provide for the filing of a lawsuit to determine whether MERS has been authorized by the holder of the Note to initiate a foreclosure”].) As the court reasoned in Gomes:
“[The borrower] is not seeking a remedy for misconduct. He is seeking to impose the additional requirement that MERS demonstrate in court that it is authorized to initiate a foreclosure․ [S]uch a requirement would be inconsistent with the policy behind nonjudicial foreclosure of providing a quick, inexpensive and efficient remedy.” (Gomes, supra, at p. 1154, fn. 5.) 3
The California Supreme Court recently held that a borrower has standing to sue for wrongful foreclosure where an alleged defect in the assignment renders the assignment void. (Yvanova, supra, 62 Cal.4th at pp. 942–943.) However, Yvanova’s ruling is expressly limited to the post-foreclosure context. (Id. at pp. 934–935 (“narrow question” under review was whether a borrower seeking remedies for wrongful foreclosure has standing, not whether a borrower could preempt a nonjudicial foreclosure).) Because Saterbak brings a preforeclosure suit challenging Defendant’s ability to foreclose,Yvanova does not alter her standing obligations.4
Moreover, Yvanova recognizes borrower standing only where the defect in the assignment renders the assignment void, rather than voidable. (Yvanova, supra, 62 Cal.4th at pp. 942–943.) “Unlike a voidable transaction, a void one cannot be ratified or validated by the parties to it even if they so desire.” (Id. at p. 936.) Yvanova expressly offers no opinion as to whether, under New York law, an untimely assignment to a securitized trust made after the trust’s closing date is void or merely voidable. (Id. at pp. 940–941.) We conclude such an assignment is merely voidable. (See Rajamin v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. (2d Cir.2014) 757 F.3d 79, 88–89 [“the weight of New York authority is contrary to plaintiffs’ contention that any failure to comply with the terms of the PSAs rendered defendants’ acquisition of plaintiffs’ loans and mortgages void as a matter of trust law”; “an unauthorized act by the trustee is not void but merely voidable by the beneficiary”].) 5Consequently, Saterbak lacks standing to challenge alleged defects in the MERS assignment of the DOT to the 2007–AR7 trust.
C. The DOT Does Not Confer Standing
Saterbak argues “clear language” in the DOT and “the rules of adhesion contracts” confer standing. We disagree.In signing the DOT, Saterbak agreed the Note and DOT could be sold “one or more times without prior notice.” She further agreed:
“Borrower understands and agrees that MERS holds only legal title to the interests granted by Borrower in this Security Instrument, but, if necessary to comply with law or custom, MERS (as nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns) has the right: to exercise any or all of those interests, including, but not limited to, the right to foreclose and sell the Property; and to take any action required of Lender including, but not limited to, releasing and canceling this Security Instrument.” 6
“The authority to exercise all of the rights and interests of the lender necessarily includes the authority to assign the deed of trust.” (Siliga v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 75, 84, disapproved on other grounds in Yvanova, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 939, fn. 13; see Herrera v. Federal National Mortgage Assn. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1504 [interpreting language identical to Saterbak’s DOT to give MERS “the right to assign the DOT”], disapproved on other grounds in Yvanova, at p. 939, fn. 13.) The federal court adjudicating Saterbak’s parallel case against her loan servicer cited the above-quoted language in the DOT to reject the same securitization theory proffered here. (Saterbak v. National Default Servicing Corp. (S.D.Cal. Oct. 1, 2015, Civ. No. 15–CV–956–WQH–NLS) 2015 WL 5794560, at *7.)
Saterbak nevertheless points to language in the DOT that only the “Lender” has the power to declare default and foreclose, while the “Borrower” has the right to sue prior to foreclosure in order to “ ‘assert the non-existence of a default or any other defense of Borrower to acceleration and sale.’ ” But these provisions do not change her standing obligations under California law; they merely give Saterbak the power to argue any defense the borrower may have to avoid foreclosure. As explained ante, Saterbak lacks standing to challenge the assignment as invalid under the PSA. (Jenkins, supra, 216 Cal.App.4th at p. 515.)
Saterbak also points to the presuit notice provisions in the DOT to argue the DOT contemplates her action. She quotes language in the DOT requiring the Borrower and Lender to provide notice and a reasonable opportunity to repair before “any judicial action ․ that arises from the other party’s actions pursuant to this Security Instrument.” However, by Saterbak’s own theory, her action does not arise “pursuant to this Security Instrument”; it is premised instead on a violation of the PSA. The presuit notice provisions in the DOT do not contemplate her action.
Finally, Saterbak contends the deed of trust is an adhesion contract, and, therefore, restrictive language that “deprives a borrower of the right to argue her loan has been invalidly assigned” must be “conspicuous and clear.” She claims, “If the assignment clause was intended by the drafter to cutoff the borrower’s right to challenge the assignment, it should have used clear language to that effect. It did not.” As a rule, “contracts of adhesion are generally enforceable according to their terms, [but] a provision contained in such a contract cannot be enforced if it does not fall within the reasonable expectations of the weaker or ‘adhering’ party.” (Fischer v. First Internat. Bank (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1433, 1446 (Fischer ).) However, “[b]ecause a promissory note is a negotiable instrument, a borrower must anticipate it can and might be transferred to another creditor” (Fontenot, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at p. 272), together with the deed of trust securing it.Saterbak “irrevocably grant[ed] and convey[ed]” the Mount Helix property to the Lender; recognized that MERS (as nominee) had the right “to exercise any or all” of the interests of the Lender; and agreed that the Note, together with the DOT, could be sold one or more times without notice to her. There is no reasonable expectation from this language that the parties intended to allow Saterbak to challenge future assignments made to unrelated third parties. (Cf. Fischer, supra, at pp. 1448–1449 [holding there was a triable issue of fact “as to whether the parties mutually intended to permit cross-collateralization” on two separate loans, given ambiguity between the broadly worded dragnet clause and a “ ‘Related Document[ ]’ ” incorporated by reference into the loan agreement as to whether the parties mutually intended it].) 7
D. The Homeowner Bill of Rights Does Not Confer Standing
For the first time on appeal, Saterbak relies on the California Homeowner Bill of Rights (HBOR) to claim standing. She argues sections 2924.17 and 2924.12 allow her to challenge the alleged defects in MERS’s assignment of the DOT to the 2007–AR7 trust. In relevant part, section 2924.17, subdivision (a), provides an “assignment of a deed of trust ․ shall be accurate and complete and supported by competent and reliable evidence.” Section 2924.12, subdivisions (a) and (b) allow borrowers to bring an action for damages or injunctive relief for “a material violation of Section ․ 2924.17.”
As Saterbak acknowledges, the HBOR went into effect on January 1, 2013. (§ 2923.4.) The FAC alleges the DOT was assigned on December 27, 2011, and recorded on December 17, 2012. Saterbak fails to point to any provision suggesting that the California Legislature intended the HBOR to apply retroactively. (Myers v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 828, 841 [“California courts comply with the legal principle that unless there is an ‘express retroactivity provision, a statute will not be applied retroactively unless it is very clear from extrinsic sources that the Legislature ․ must have intended a retroactive application’ ”].) Therefore, the HBOR does not grant Saterbak new rights on appeal.8
In summary, for the reasons discussed above, we conclude Saterbak lacks standing to challenge MERS’s assignment of the DOT to the 2007–AR7 trust.
II. SECTION 3412
Saterbak seeks to cancel the assignment of the DOT pursuant to section 3412. She argues that to withstand a demurrer, she merely needs to allege the assignment was void or voidable and that it could cause serious injury. We disagree.
To state a cause of action under section 3412, Saterbak must allege the assignment was void or voidable against her. (§ 3412 [“A written instrument, in respect to which there is reasonable apprehension that if left outstanding it may cause serious injury to a person against whom it is void or voidable, may, upon his application, be so adjudged, and ordered to be delivered up or canceled” (italics added) ]; see also Johnson v. PNC Mortg. (N.D.Cal.2015) 80 F.Supp.3d 980, 990 (Johnson ) [section 3412 requires “the challenged instrument be void or voidable against the party seeking to cancel it”].) Johnson dismissed a similar cause of action under section 3412 because the plaintiffs, borrowers like Saterbak, failed to “allege a plausible case that the assignment is ‘void or voidable’ against them.” (Johnson, supra, at p. 990.) Here, Saterbak fails to state a cause of action under section 3412 because she cannot allege that MERS’s assignment of the DOT to the 2007–AR7 trust was void or voidable against her.
Saterbak also fails to allege “serious injury.” She argues she “faces the prospect of losing her home due to the actions of an entity that has no power to foreclose because it does not own her [DOT].” However, even if the assignment was invalid, it could not “cause serious injury” under the statute because her obligations on the Note remained unchanged. (§ 3412, italics added.) For example, in Johnson, supra, 80 F.Supp.3d 980, borrowers sought to cancel the assignment of their deed of trust, claiming alleged infirmities in the assignment cast a shadow on their title and continued to ruin their credit. The court rejected this theory because the alleged defects did not change the borrowers’ payment obligations, and the borrowers did not deny they had defaulted. The court concluded: “It is not really the assignment, then, or its challenged provenance, that has stained their credit report.It is the fact that they defaulted.” (Id. at p. 989.) Likewise, here, the allegedly defective assignment did not alter Saterbak’s payment obligations under the Note. Saterbak does not deny she defaulted or that her debt remains in arrears. Consequently, she cannot demonstrate how the allegedly invalid assignment could “cause serious injury” within the meaning of section 3412 if left outstanding. (§ 3412, italics added.)
Finally, because a cause of action to cancel a written instrument under section 3412 sounds in equity, a debtor must generally allege tender or offer of tender of the amounts borrowed as a prerequisite to such claims. The tender requirement “is based on the theory that one who is relying upon equity in overcoming a voidable sale must show that he is able to perform his obligations under the contract so that equity will not have been employed for an idle purpose.” (Dimock v. Emerald Properties (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 868, 878, italics omitted.) The tender rule is not absolute; tender is not required to cancel a written instrument that is void and not merely voidable. (Id. at p. 876; Smith v. Williams (1961) 55 Cal.2d 617, 620–621; Ram v. OneWest Bank, FSB (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1, 11.) As discussed ante, we conclude the alleged defects merely rendered MERS’s assignment of the DOT to the 2007–AR7 trust voidable under New York law. In any event, because we affirm the judgment on standing grounds, we do not decide whether Saterbak was required to plead the ability or willingness to tender to cancel the assignment pursuant to section 3412.
III. LEAVE TO AMEND
We must consider whether Saterbak has demonstrated a reasonable probability that she could cure the defects that we have identified. (Schifando v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 1081.) Saterbak contends she could amend her complaint to “argue that the language in her [DOT] gives her the right to attack a void assignment of her loan.” As discussed in detail above, we conclude the DOT does not confer this right. Because Saterbak has not shown how she could remedy her lack of standing to challenge MERS’s assignment of the DOT to the 2007–AR7 trust, we conclude the trial court properly sustained Defendant’s demurrer to the FAC without leave to amend.
The judgment is affirmed. Respondent 2007–AR7 trust shall recover its costs on appeal.
The parties do not dispute Saterbak is in arrears on her debt obligations and a foreclosure sale has yet to take place.
All further statutory references are to the Civil Code unless otherwise specified.
Saterbak is mistaken in claiming Gomes holds “a borrower can challenge the power of an alleged loan purchaser to foreclose if [the borrower] can allege specific facts showing the assignment is invalid.” As discussed, Gomes holds that under California law, plaintiffs may not bring preemptive actions to challenge a defendant’s power to foreclose. (Gomes, supra, 192 Cal.App.4th at p. 1156.)
The Supreme Court has granted review in Keshtgar v. U.S. Bank, N.A., review granted October 1, 2014, S220012, a case involving a preforeclosure challenge based on alleged deficiencies in the assignment of the deed of trust.
Saterbak cites Glaski v. Bank of America (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1079, but the New York case upon which Glaski relied has been overturned. (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Erobobo (N.Y. App. Div.2015) 127 A.D.3d 1176, 1178; see Rajamin, supra, 757 F.3d at p. 90 [rejecting Glaski’s interpretation of New York law].) We decline to follow Glaski and conclude the alleged defects here merely render the assignment voidable.
As the court explained in Fontenot: “MERS is a private corporation that administers a national registry of real estate debt interest transactions. Members of the MERS System assign limited interests in the real property to MERS, which is listed as a grantee in the official records of local governments, but the members retain the promissory notes and mortgage servicing rights. The notes may thereafter be transferred among members without requiring recordation in the public records. [Citation.] [¶] Ordinarily, the owner of a promissory note secured by a deed of trust is designated as the beneficiary of the deed of trust. [Citation.] Under the MERS System, however, MERS is designated as the beneficiary in deeds of trust, acting as ‘nominee’ for the lender, and granted the authority to exercise legal rights of the lender.” (Fontenot, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at p. 267.)
Saterbak also cites Haynes v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1198, which involved a dispute over auto insurance coverage. The court stated the general rule that “to be enforceable, any [insurance] provision that takes away or limits coverage reasonably expected by an insured must be ‘conspicuous, plain and clear.’ ” (Id. at p. 1204, italics added.) Even if Haynes were relevant to the current context, there is no reasonable expectation created in the DOT that Saterbak would have the power to challenge assignments made to unrelated third parties. (Fontenot, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at p. 272.)
Saterbak contends the notice of trustee’s sale was recorded after the HBOR went into effect. However, the FAC challenges MERS’s assignment of the DOT to the 2007–AR7 trust, not the notice of trustee’s sale. We further reject Saterbak’s argument that the HBOR “overruled” Jenkins and cases citing it: Jenkins was decided after the HBOR went into effect. (Jenkins, supra, 216 Cal.App.4th 497 [decided May 17, 2013].)
The Myth Mongers will come out in force saying this opinion means assignment snafus can void an otherwise perfectly just non-judicial foreclosure.
In fact, it says that Yvanova may sue to undo a non-judicial foreclosure on the basis that the foreclosing party did not own beneficial interest in the note because of a flawed (void) assignment of the note.
The court specifically denied suggesting the borrower may preemptively sue to prevent the foreclosure because of a questionable assignment.
Other courts in California have repeatedly held that the borrower has no standing to sue regarding the wrongful assignment of the note or a breach of the pooling and servicing agreement because the borrower did not suffer an injury from it, does not receive benefits from it, and never became a party to it.
The opinion cited numerous other opinions, including Glaski, showing that a VOID assignment deprives an alleged creditor of the “standing” (right) to order a foreclosure in a non-judicial foreclosure situation. The court made the point that a borrower needs such a protection in a non-judicial foreclosure. Otherwise, anybody could order a foreclosure and force a sale of the property for borrowers NOT in default.
This means the trial court might award damages to Yvanova for the wrongful foreclosure. It does appear that a non-existent entity made a void assignment to Deutschebank NTC as trustee for a Morgan Stanley securitization trust after the bankruptcy and asset transfer for New Century Mortgage Corporation.
Yvanova’s case will now go back to trial where she might decide to renew her effort to undo the foreclosure because of a faulty assignment, and to get the court to award her damages. The court might deny her as other courts have others who challenged an allegedly faulty assignment. But she will most likely collect damages for the wrongful foreclosure and loss of her house.
What’s the bottom line issue here?
Plain and simple – the assignment has NOTHING to do with whether the borrower owes the debt and must ultimately forfeit the property to foreclosure sale for breaching the note.
This is such a HARD CORE OBLIGATION that numerous states allow the non–judicial foreclosure process to become the equivalent of repossessing a car on which the borrower fails to make timely payments. The principle: creditors should not have to bear the expense of slogging through lengthy litigation in order to force a recalcitrant borrower to give up the collateral for the loan in default. Creditors do NOT owe borrowers a free house.
However, a VOID assignment makes proper foreclosure impossible, and a court should punish the trustee and creditor who execute a foreclosure, even for a borrower in default.
And in that case, the right creditor will straighten out ownership of the note (possibly by a blank indorsement), and order the foreclosure anew. This time the borrower in default will lose the house for good.
Is there another issue of importance here?
Yes. upwards of 95% of all home loan borrowers have suffered injuries in the form of appraisal fraud, mortgage fraud, legal errors, contract breaches, and/or regulatory law breaches. To discover these, the borrower must hire a competent professional to conduct a comprehensive examination of all documents related to the loan transaction. With an examination report in hand to prove the injuries, the borrower may negotiate a favorable settlement or sue for damages. Only such an examination, and artfully presenting the causes of action revealed in the exam report, can provide a reliable way for the borrower to end up with cash in hand or other financial compensation for the injuries.
If you need or want such a mortgage examination, or want to discuss your case, fill in the contact form at http://mortgageattack.com
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
TSVETANA YVANOVA, )
Plaintiff and Appellant, )
) Ct.App. 2/1 B247188
NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE )
CORPORATION et al., )
) Los Angeles County
Defendants and Respondents. ) Super. Ct. No. LC097218
The collapse in 2008 of the housing bubble and its accompanying system of home loan securitization led, among other consequences, to a great national wave of loan defaults and foreclosures. One key legal issue arising out of the collapse was whether and how defaulting homeowners could challenge the validity of the chain of assignments involved in securitization of their loans. We granted review in this case to decide one aspect of that question: whether the borrower on a home loan secured by a deed of trust may base an action for wrongful foreclosure on allegations a purported assignment of the note and deed of trust to the foreclosing party bore defects rendering the assignment void.
The Court of Appeal held plaintiff Tsvetana Yvanova could not state a cause of action for wrongful foreclosure based on an allegedly void assignment because she lacked standing to assert defects in the assignment, to which she was not a party. We conclude, to the contrary, that because in a nonjudicial foreclosure only the original beneficiary of a deed of trust or its assignee or agent may direct the trustee to sell the property, an allegation that the assignment was void, and not merely voidable at the behest of the parties to the assignment, will support an action for wrongful foreclosure.
Our ruling in this case is a narrow one. We hold only that a borrower who has suffered a nonjudicial foreclosure does not lack standing to sue for wrongful foreclosure based on an allegedly void assignment merely because he or she was in default on the loan and was not a party to the challenged assignment. We do not hold or suggest that a borrower may attempt to preempt a threatened nonjudicial foreclosure by a suit questioning the foreclosing party’s right to proceed. Nor do we hold or suggest that plaintiff in this case has alleged facts showing the assignment is void or that, to the extent she has, she will be able to prove those facts. Nor, finally, in rejecting defendants’ arguments on standing do we address any of the substantive elements of the wrongful foreclosure tort or the factual showing necessary to meet those elements.
Factual and Procedural Background
This case comes to us on appeal from the trial court’s sustaining of a demurrer. For purposes of reviewing a demurrer, we accept the truth of material facts properly pleaded in the operative complaint, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. We may also consider matters subject to judicial notice. (Evans v. City of Berkeley (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1, 6.) To determine whether the trial court should, in sustaining the demurrer, have granted the plaintiff leave to amend, we consider whether on the pleaded and noticeable facts there is a reasonable possibility of an amendment that would cure the complaint’s legal defect or defects. (Schifando v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1074, 1081.)
In 2006, plaintiff executed a deed of trust securing a note for $483,000 on a residential property in Woodland Hills, Los Angeles County. The lender, and beneficiary of the trust deed, was defendant New Century Mortgage Corporation (New Century). New Century filed for bankruptcy on April 2, 2007, and on August 1, 2008, it was liquidated and its assets were transferred to a liquidation trust.
On December 19, 2011, according to the operative complaint, New Century (despite its earlier dissolution) executed a purported assignment of the deed of trust to Deutsche Bank National Trust, as trustee of an investment loan trust the complaint identifies as “Msac-2007 Trust‑He‑1 Pass Thru Certificates.” We take notice of the recorded assignment, which is in the appellate record. (See fn. 1, ante.) As assignor the recorded document lists New Century; as assignee it lists Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (Deutsche Bank) “as trustee for the registered holder of Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2007‑HE1 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007‑HE1” (the Morgan Stanley investment trust). The assignment states it was prepared by Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, which is also listed as the contact for both assignor and assignee and as the attorney in fact for New Century. The assignment is dated December 19, 2011, and bears a notation that it was recorded December 30, 2011.
According to the complaint, the Morgan Stanley investment trust to which the deed of trust on plaintiff’s property was purportedly assigned on December 19, 2011, had a closing date (the date by which all loans and mortgages or trust deeds must be transferred to the investment pool) of January 27, 2007.
On August 20, 2012, according to the complaint, Western Progressive, LLC, recorded two documents: one substituting itself
for Deutsche Bank as trustee, the other giving notice of a trustee’s sale. We take notice of a substitution of trustee, dated February 28, 2012, and recorded August 20, 2012, replacing Deutsche Bank with Western Progressive, LLC, as trustee on the deed of trust, and of a notice of trustee’s sale dated August 16, 2012, and recorded August 20, 2012.
A recorded trustee’s deed upon sale dated December 24, 2012, states that plaintiff’s Woodland Hills property was sold at public auction on September 14, 2012. The deed conveys the property from Western Progressive, LLC, as trustee, to the purchaser at auction, THR California LLC, a Delaware limited liability company.
Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, to which defendants demurred, pleaded a single count for quiet title against numerous defendants including New Century, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Western Progressive, LLC, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital, Inc., and the Morgan Stanley investment trust. Plaintiff alleged the December 19, 2011, assignment of the deed of trust from New Century to the Morgan Stanley investment trust was void for two reasons: New Century’s assets had previously, in 2008, been transferred to a bankruptcy trustee; and the Morgan Stanley investment trust had closed to new loans in 2007. (The demurrer, of course, does not admit the truth of this legal conclusion; we recite it here only to help explain how the substantive issues in this case were framed.) The superior court sustained defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend, concluding on several grounds that plaintiff could not state a cause of action for quiet title.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for defendants on their demurrer. The pleaded cause of action for quiet title failed fatally, the court held, because plaintiff did not allege she had tendered payment of her debt. The court went on to discuss the question, on which it had sought and received briefing, of whether plaintiff could, on the facts alleged, amend her complaint to plead a cause of action for wrongful foreclosure.
On the wrongful foreclosure question, the Court of Appeal concluded leave to amend was not warranted. Relying on Jenkins v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 497 (Jenkins), the court held plaintiff’s allegations of improprieties in the assignment of her deed of trust to Deutsche Bank were of no avail because, as an unrelated third party to that assignment, she was unaffected by such deficiencies and had no standing to enforce the terms of the agreements allegedly violated. The court acknowledged that plaintiff’s authority, Glaski v. Bank of America, supra, 218 Cal.App.4th 1079 (Glaski), conflicted with Jenkins on the standing issue, but the court agreed with the reasoning of Jenkins and declined to follow Glaski.
We granted plaintiff’s petition for review, limiting the issue to be briefed and argued to the following: “In an action for wrongful foreclosure on a deed of trust securing a home loan, does the borrower have standing to challenge an assignment of the note and deed of trust on the basis of defects allegedly rendering the assignment void?”
I. Deeds of Trust and Nonjudicial Foreclosure
A deed of trust to real property acting as security for a loan typically has three parties: the trustor (borrower), the beneficiary (lender), and the trustee. “The trustee holds a power of sale. If the debtor defaults on the loan, the beneficiary may demand that the trustee conduct a nonjudicial foreclosure sale.” (Biancalana v. T.D. Service Co. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 807, 813.) The nonjudicial foreclosure system is designed to provide the lender-beneficiary with an inexpensive and efficient remedy against a defaulting borrower, while protecting the borrower from wrongful loss of the property and ensuring that a properly conducted sale is final between the parties and conclusive as to a bona fide purchaser. (Moeller v. Lien (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 822, 830.)
The trustee starts the nonjudicial foreclosure process by recording a notice of default and election to sell. (Civ. Code, § 2924, subd. (a)(1).) After a three‑month waiting period, and at least 20 days before the scheduled sale, the trustee may publish, post, and record a notice of sale. (§§ 2924, subd. (a)(2), 2924f, subd. (b).) If the sale is not postponed and the borrower does not exercise his or her rights of reinstatement or redemption, the property is sold at auction to the highest bidder. (§ 2924g, subd. (a); Jenkins, supra, 216 Cal.App.4th at p. 509; Moeller v. Lien, supra, 25 Cal.App.4th at pp. 830–831.) Generally speaking, the foreclosure sale extinguishes the borrower’s debt; the lender may recover no deficiency. (Code Civ. Proc., § 580d; Dreyfuss v. Union Bank of California (2000) 24 Cal.4th 400, 411.)
The trustee of a deed of trust is not a true trustee with fiduciary obligations, but acts merely as an agent for the borrower-trustor and lender-beneficiary. (Biancalana v. T.D. Service Co., supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 819; Vournas v. Fidelity Nat. Tit. Ins. Co. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 668, 677.) While it is the trustee who formally initiates the nonjudicial foreclosure, by recording first a notice of default and then a notice of sale, the trustee may take these steps only at the direction of the person or entity that currently holds the note and the beneficial interest under the deed of trust—the original beneficiary or its assignee—or that entity’s agent. (§ 2924, subd. (a)(1) [notice of default may be filed for record only by “[t]he trustee, mortgagee, or beneficiary”]; Kachlon v. Markowitz (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 316, 334 [when borrower defaults on the debt, “the beneficiary may declare a default and make a demand on the trustee to commence foreclosure”]; Santens v. Los Angeles Finance Co. (1949) 91 Cal.App.2d 197, 202 [only a person entitled to enforce the note can foreclose on the deed of trust].)
Defendants emphasize, correctly, that a borrower can generally raise no objection to assignment of the note and deed of trust. A promissory note is a negotiable instrument the lender may sell without notice to the borrower. (Creative Ventures, LLC v. Jim Ward & Associates (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1430, 1445–1446.) The deed of trust, moreover, is inseparable from the note it secures, and follows it even without a separate assignment. (§ 2936; Cockerell v. Title Ins. & Trust Co. (1954) 42 Cal.2d 284, 291; U.S. v. Thornburg (9th Cir. 1996) 82 F.3d 886, 892.) In accordance with this general law, the note and deed of trust in this case provided for their possible assignment.
A deed of trust may thus be assigned one or multiple times over the life of the loan it secures. But if the borrower defaults on the loan, only the current beneficiary may direct the trustee to undertake the nonjudicial foreclosure process. “[O]nly the ‘true owner’ or ‘beneficial holder’ of a Deed of Trust can bring to completion a nonjudicial foreclosure under California law.” (Barrionuevo v. Chase Bank, N.A. (N.D.Cal. 2012) 885 F.Supp.2d 964, 972; see Herrera v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1366, 1378 [bank and reconveyance company failed to establish they were current beneficiary and trustee, respectively, and therefore failed to show they “had authority to conduct the foreclosure sale”]; cf. U.S. Bank Nat. Assn. v. Ibanez (Mass. 2011) 941 N.E.2d 40, 51 [under Mass. law, only the original mortgagee or its assignee may conduct nonjudicial foreclosure sale].)
In itself, the principle that only the entity currently entitled to enforce a debt may foreclose on the mortgage or deed of trust securing that debt is not, or at least should not be, controversial. It is a “straightforward application of well-established commercial and real-property law: a party cannot foreclose on a mortgage unless it is the mortgagee (or its agent).” (Levitin, The Paper Chase: Securitization, Foreclosure, and the Uncertainty of Mortgage Title (2013) 63 Duke L.J. 637, 640.) Describing the copious litigation arising out of the recent foreclosure crisis, a pair of commentators explained: “While plenty of uncertainty existed, one concept clearly emerged from litigation during the 2008‑2012 period: in order to foreclose a mortgage by judicial action, one had to have the right to enforce the debt that the mortgage secured. It is hard to imagine how this notion could be controversial.” (Whitman & Milner, Foreclosing on Nothing: The Curious Problem of the Deed of Trust Foreclosure Without Entitlement to Enforce the Note (2013) 66 Ark. L.Rev. 21, 23, fn. omitted.)
More subject to dispute is the question presented here: under what circumstances, if any, may the borrower challenge a nonjudicial foreclosure on the ground that the foreclosing party is not a valid assignee of the original lender? Put another way, does the borrower have standing to challenge the validity of an assignment to which he or she was not a party? We proceed to that issue.
II. Borrower Standing to Challenge an Assignment as Void
A beneficiary or trustee under a deed of trust who conducts an illegal, fraudulent or willfully oppressive sale of property may be liable to the borrower for wrongful foreclosure. (Chavez v. Indymac Mortgage Services (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1052, 1062; Munger v. Moore (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 1, 7.) A foreclosure initiated by one with no authority to do so is wrongful for purposes of such an action. (Barrionuevo v. Chase Bank, N.A., supra, 885 F.Supp.2d at pp. 973–974; Ohlendorf v. American Home Mortgage Servicing (E.D.Cal. 2010) 279 F.R.D. 575, 582–583.) As explained in part I, ante, only the original beneficiary, its assignee or an agent of one of these has the authority to instruct the trustee to initiate and complete a nonjudicial foreclosure sale. The question is whether and when a wrongful foreclosure plaintiff may challenge the authority of one who claims it by assignment.
In Glaski, supra, 218 Cal.App.4th 1079, 1094–1095, the court held a borrower may base a wrongful foreclosure claim on allegations that the foreclosing party acted without authority because the assignment by which it purportedly became beneficiary under the deed of trust was not merely voidable but void. Before discussing Glaski’s holdings and rationale, we review the distinction between void and voidable transactions.
A void contract is without legal effect. (Rest.2d Contracts, § 7, com. a.) “It binds no one and is a mere nullity.” (Little v. CFS Service Corp. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1354, 1362.) “Such a contract has no existence whatever. It has no legal entity for any purpose and neither action nor inaction of a party to it can validate it . . . .” (Colby v. Title Ins. and Trust Co. (1911) 160 Cal. 632, 644.) As we said of a fraudulent real property transfer in First Nat. Bank of L. A. v. Maxwell (1899) 123 Cal. 360, 371, “ ‘A void thing is as no thing.’ ”
A voidable transaction, in contrast, “is one where one or more parties have the power, by a manifestation of election to do so, to avoid the legal relations created by the contract, or by ratification of the contract to extinguish the power of avoidance.” (Rest.2d Contracts, § 7.) It may be declared void but is not void in itself. (Little v. CFS Service Corp., supra, 188 Cal.App.3d at p. 1358.) Despite its defects, a voidable transaction, unlike a void one, is subject to ratification by the parties. (Rest.2d Contracts, § 7; Aronoff v. Albanese (N.Y.App.Div. 1982) 446 N.Y.S.2d 368, 370.)
In Glaski, the foreclosing entity purportedly acted for the current beneficiary, the trustee of a securitized mortgage investment trust. The plaintiff, seeking relief from the allegedly wrongful foreclosure, claimed his note and deed of trust had never been validly assigned to the securitized trust because the purported assignments were made after the trust’s closing date. (Glaski, supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1082–1087.)
The Glaski court began its analysis of wrongful foreclosure by agreeing with a federal district court that such a cause of action could be made out “ ‘where a party alleged not to be the true beneficiary instructs the trustee to file a Notice of Default and initiate nonjudicial foreclosure.’ ” (Glaski, supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at p. 1094, quoting Barrionuevo v. Chase Bank, N.A., supra, 885 F.Supp.2d at p. 973.) But the wrongful foreclosure plaintiff, Glaski cautioned, must do more than assert a lack of authority to foreclose; the plaintiff must allege facts “show[ing] the defendant who invoked the power of sale was not the true beneficiary.” (Glaski, at p. 1094.)
Acknowledging that a borrower’s assertion that an assignment of the note and deed of trust is invalid raises the question of the borrower’s standing to challenge an assignment to which the borrower is not a party, the Glaski court cited several federal court decisions for the proposition that a borrower has standing to challenge such an assignment as void, though not as voidable. (Glaski, supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1094–1095.) Two of these decisions, Culhane v. Aurora Loan Services of Nebraska (1st Cir. 2013) 708 F.3d 282 (Culhane) and Reinagel v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. (5th Cir. 2013) 735 F.3d 220 (Reinagel), discussed standing at some length; we will examine them in detail in a moment.
Glaski adopted from the federal decisions and a California treatise the view that “a borrower can challenge an assignment of his or her note and deed of trust if the defect asserted would void the assignment” not merely render it voidable. (Glaski, supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at p. 1095.) Cases holding that a borrower may never challenge an assignment because the borrower was neither a party to nor a third party beneficiary of the assignment agreement “ ‘paint with too broad a brush’ ” by failing to distinguish between void and voidable agreements. (Ibid., quoting Culhane, supra, 708 F.3d at p. 290.)
The Glaski court went on to resolve the question of whether the plaintiff had pled a defect in the chain of assignments leading to the foreclosing party that would, if true, render one of the necessary assignments void rather than voidable. (Glaski, supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at p. 1095.) On this point, Glaski held allegations that the plaintiff’s note and deed of trust were purportedly transferred into the trust after the trust’s closing date were sufficient to plead a void assignment and hence to establish standing. (Glaski, at pp. 1096–1098.) This last holding of Glaski is not before us. On granting plaintiff’s petition for review, we limited the scope of our review to whether “the borrower [has] standing to challenge an assignment of the note and deed of trust on the basis of defects allegedly rendering the assignment void.” We did not include in our order the question of whether a postclosing date transfer into a New York securitized trust is void or merely voidable, and though the parties’ briefs address it, we express no opinion on the question here.
Returning to the question that is before us, we consider in more detail the authority Glaski relied on for its standing holding. In Culhane, a Massachusetts home loan borrower sought relief from her nonjudicial foreclosure on the ground that the assignment by which Aurora Loan Services of Nebraska (Aurora) claimed authority to foreclose—a transfer of the mortgage from Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), to Aurora—was void because MERS never properly held the mortgage. (Culhane, supra, 708 F.3d at pp. 286–288, 291.)
Before addressing the merits of the plaintiff’s allegations, the Culhane court considered Aurora’s contention the plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the assignment of her mortgage from MERS to Aurora. On this question, the court first concluded the plaintiff had a sufficient personal stake in the outcome, having shown a concrete and personalized injury resulting from the challenged assignment: “The action challenged here relates to Aurora’s right to foreclose by virtue of the assignment from MERS. The identified harm—the foreclosure—can be traced directly to Aurora’s exercise of the authority purportedly delegated by the assignment.” (Culhane, supra, 708 F.3d at pp. 289–290.)
Culhane next considered whether the prudential principle that a litigant should not be permitted to assert the rights and interest of another dictates that borrowers lack standing to challenge mortgage assignments as to which they are neither parties nor third party beneficiaries. (Culhane, supra, 708 F.3d at p. 290.) Two aspects of Massachusetts law on nonjudicial foreclosure persuaded the court such a broad rule is unwarranted. First, only the mortgagee (that is, the original lender or its assignee) may exercise the power of sale, and the borrower is entitled to relief from foreclosure by an unauthorized party. (Culhane, at p. 290.) Second, in a nonjudicial foreclosure the borrower has no direct opportunity to challenge the foreclosing entity’s authority in court. Without standing to sue for relief from a wrongful foreclosure, “a Massachusetts mortgagor would be deprived of a means to assert her legal protections . . . .” (Ibid.) These considerations led the Culhane court to conclude “a mortgagor has standing to challenge the assignment of a mortgage on her home to the extent that such a challenge is necessary to contest a foreclosing entity’s status qua mortgagee.” (Id. at p. 291.)
The court immediately cautioned that its holding was limited to allegations of a void transfer. If, for example, the assignor had no interest to assign or had no authority to make the particular assignment, “a challenge of this sort would be sufficient to refute an assignee’s status qua mortgagee.” (Culhane, supra, 708 F.3d at p. 291.) But where the alleged defect in an assignment would “render it merely voidable at the election of one party but otherwise effective to pass legal title,” the borrower has no standing to challenge the assignment on that basis. (Ibid.)
In Reinagel, upon which the Glaski court also relied, the federal court held that under Texas law borrowers defending against a judicial foreclosure have standing to “ ‘challenge the chain of assignments by which a party claims a right to foreclose.’ ” (Reinagel, supra, 735 F.3d at p. 224.) Though Texas law does not allow a nonparty to a contract to enforce the contract unless he or she is an intended third-party beneficiary, the borrowers in this situation “are not attempting to enforce the terms of the instruments of assignment; to the contrary, they urge that the assignments are void ab initio.” (Id. at p. 225.)
Like Culhane, Reinagel distinguished between defects that render a transaction void and those that merely make it voidable at a party’s behest. “Though ‘the law is settled’ in Texas that an obligor cannot defend against an assignee’s efforts to enforce the obligation on a ground that merely renders the assignment voidable at the election of the assignor, Texas courts follow the majority rule that the obligor may defend ‘on any ground which renders the assignment void.’ ” (Reinagel, supra, 735 F.3d at p. 225.) The contrary rule would allow an institution to foreclose on a borrower’s property “though it is not a valid party to the deed of trust or promissory note . . . .” (Ibid.)
Jenkins, on which the Court of Appeal below relied, was decided close in time to Glaski (neither decision discusses the other) but reaches the opposite conclusion on standing. In Jenkins, the plaintiff sued to prevent a foreclosure sale that had not yet occurred, alleging the purported beneficiary who sought the sale held no security interest because a purported transfer of the loan into a securitized trust was made in violation of the pooling and servicing agreement that governed the investment trust. (Jenkins, supra, 216 Cal.App.4th at pp. 504–505.)
The appellate court held a demurrer to the plaintiff’s cause of action for declaratory relief was properly sustained for two reasons. First, Jenkins held California law did not permit a “preemptive judicial action to challenge the right, power, and authority of a foreclosing ‘beneficiary’ or beneficiary’s ‘agent’ to initiate and pursue foreclosure.” (Jenkins, supra, 216 Cal.App.4th at p. 511.) Relying primarily on Gomes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1149, Jenkins reasoned that such preemptive suits are inconsistent with California’s comprehensive statutory scheme for nonjudicial foreclosure; allowing such a lawsuit “ ‘would fundamentally undermine the nonjudicial nature of the process and introduce the possibility of lawsuits filed solely for the purpose of delaying valid foreclosures.’ ” (Jenkins, at p. 513, quoting Gomes at p. 1155.)
This aspect of Jenkins, disallowing the use of a lawsuit to preempt a nonjudicial foreclosure, is not within the scope of our review, which is limited to a borrower’s standing to challenge an assignment in an action seeking remedies for wrongful foreclosure. As framed by the proceedings below, the concrete question in the present case is whether plaintiff should be permitted to amend her complaint to seek redress, in a wrongful foreclosure count, for the trustee’s sale that has already taken place. We do not address the distinct question of whether, or under what circumstances, a borrower may bring an action for injunctive or declaratory relief to prevent a foreclosure sale from going forward.
Second, as an alternative ground, Jenkins held a demurrer to the declaratory relief claim was proper because the plaintiff had failed to allege an actual controversy as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1060. (Jenkins, supra, 216 Cal.App.4th at p. 513.) The plaintiff did not dispute that her loan could be assigned or that she had defaulted on it and remained in arrears. (Id. at p. 514.) Even if one of the assignments of the note and deed of trust was improper in some respect, the appellate court reasoned, “Jenkins is not the victim of such invalid transfer because her obligations under the note remained unchanged. Instead, the true victim may be an individual or entity that believes it has a present beneficial interest in the promissory note and may suffer the unauthorized loss of its interest in the note.” (Id. at p. 515.) In particular, the plaintiff could not complain about violations of the securitized trust’s transfer rules: “As an unrelated third party to the alleged securitization, and any other subsequent transfers of the beneficial interest under the promissory note, Jenkins lacks standing to enforce any agreements, including the investment trust’s pooling and servicing agreement, relating to such transactions.” (Ibid.)
For its conclusion on standing, Jenkins cited In re Correia (Bankr. 1st Cir. 2011) 452 B.R. 319. The borrowers in that case challenged a foreclosure on the ground that the assignment of their mortgage into a securitized trust had not been made in accordance with the trust’s pooling and servicing agreement (PSA). (Id. at pp. 321–322.) The appellate court held the borrowers “lacked standing to challenge the mortgage’s chain of title under the PSA.” (Id. at p. 324.) Being neither parties nor third party beneficiaries of the pooling agreement, they could not complain of a failure to abide by its terms. (Ibid.)
Jenkins also cited Herrera v. Federal National Mortgage Assn. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1495, which primarily addressed the merits of a foreclosure challenge, concluding the borrowers had adduced no facts on which they could allege an assignment from MERS to another beneficiary was invalid. (Id. at pp. 1502–1506.) In reaching the merits, the court did not explicitly discuss the plaintiffs’ standing to challenge the assignment. In a passage cited in Jenkins, however, the court observed that the plaintiffs, in order to state a wrongful foreclosure claim, needed to show prejudice, and they could not do so because the challenged assignment did not change their obligations under the note. (Herrera, at pp. 1507–1508.) Even if MERS lacked the authority to assign the deed of trust, “the true victims were not plaintiffs but the lender.” (Id. at p. 1508.)
On the narrow question before us—whether a wrongful foreclosure plaintiff may challenge an assignment to the foreclosing entity as void—we conclude Glaski provides a more logical answer than Jenkins. As explained in part I, ante, only the entity holding the beneficial interest under the deed of trust—the original lender, its assignee, or an agent of one of these—may instruct the trustee to commence and complete a nonjudicial foreclosure. (§ 2924, subd. (a)(1); Barrionuevo v. Chase Bank, N.A., supra, 885 F.Supp.2d at p. 972.) If a purported assignment necessary to the chain by which the foreclosing entity claims that power is absolutely void, meaning of no legal force or effect whatsoever (Colby v. Title Ins. and Trust Co., supra, 160 Cal. at p. 644; Rest.2d Contracts, § 7, com. a), the foreclosing entity has acted without legal authority by pursuing a trustee’s sale, and such an unauthorized sale constitutes a wrongful foreclosure. (Barrionuevo v. Chase Bank, N.A., at pp. 973–974.)
Like the Massachusetts borrowers considered in Culhane, whose mortgages contained a power of sale allowing for nonjudicial foreclosure, California borrowers whose loans are secured by a deed of trust with a power of sale may suffer foreclosure without judicial process and thus “would be deprived of a means to assert [their] legal protections” if not permitted to challenge the foreclosing entity’s authority through an action for wrongful foreclosure. (Culhane, supra, 708 F.3d at p. 290.) A borrower therefore “has standing to challenge the assignment of a mortgage on her home to the extent that such a challenge is necessary to contest a foreclosing entity’s status qua mortgagee” (id. at p. 291)—that is, as the current holder of the beneficial interest under the deed of trust. (Accord, Wilson v. HSBC Mortgage Servs., Inc. (1st Cir. 2014) 744 F.3d 1, 9 [“A homeowner in Massachusetts—even when not a party to or third party beneficiary of a mortgage assignment—has standing to challenge that assignment as void because success on the merits would prove the purported assignee is not, in fact, the mortgagee and therefore lacks any right to foreclose on the mortgage.”].)
Jenkins and other courts denying standing have done so partly out of concern with allowing a borrower to enforce terms of a transfer agreement to which the borrower was not a party. In general, California law does not give a party personal standing to assert rights or interests belonging solely to others. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 367 [action must be brought by or on behalf of the real party in interest]; Jasmine Networks, Inc. v. Superior Court (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 980, 992.) When an assignment is merely voidable, the power to ratify or avoid the transaction lies solely with the parties to the assignment; the transaction is not void unless and until one of the parties takes steps to make it so. A borrower who challenges a foreclosure on the ground that an assignment to the foreclosing party bore defects rendering it voidable could thus be said to assert an interest belonging solely to the parties to the assignment rather than to herself.
When the plaintiff alleges a void assignment, however, the Jenkins court’s concern with enforcement of a third party’s interests is misplaced. Borrowers who challenge the foreclosing party’s authority on the grounds of a void assignment “are not attempting to enforce the terms of the instruments of assignment; to the contrary, they urge that the assignments are void ab initio.” (Reinagel, supra, 735 F.3d at p. 225; accord, Mruk v. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. (R.I. 2013) 82 A.3d 527, 536 [borrowers challenging an assignment as void “are not attempting to assert the rights of one of the contracting parties; instead, the homeowners are asserting their own rights not to have their homes unlawfully foreclosed upon”].)
Unlike a voidable transaction, a void one cannot be ratified or validated by the parties to it even if they so desire. (Colby v. Title Ins. and Trust Co., supra, 160 Cal. at p. 644; Aronoff v. Albanese, supra, 446 N.Y.S.2d at p. 370.) Parties to a securitization or other transfer agreement may well wish to ratify the transfer agreement despite any defects, but no ratification is possible if the assignment is void ab initio. In seeking a finding that an assignment agreement was void, therefore, a plaintiff in Yvanova’s position is not asserting the interests of parties to the assignment; she is asserting her own interest in limiting foreclosure on her property to those with legal authority to order a foreclosure sale. This, then, is not a situation in which standing to sue is lacking because its “sole object . . . is to settle rights of third persons who are not parties.” (Golden Gate Bridge etc. Dist. v. Felt (1931) 214 Cal. 308, 316.)
Defendants argue a borrower who is in default on his or her loan suffers no prejudice from foreclosure by an unauthorized party, since the actual holder of the beneficial interest on the deed of trust could equally well have foreclosed on the property. As the Jenkins court put it, when an invalid transfer of a note and deed of trust leads to foreclosure by an unauthorized party, the “victim” is not the borrower, whose obligations under the note are unaffected by the transfer, but “an individual or entity that believes it has a present beneficial interest in the promissory note and may suffer the unauthorized loss of its interest in the note.” (Jenkins, supra, 216 Cal.App.4th at p. 515; see also Siliga v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 75, 85 [borrowers had no standing to challenge assignment by MERS where they do not dispute they are in default and “there is no reason to believe . . . the original lender would have refrained from foreclosure in these circumstances”]; Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at p. 272 [wrongful foreclosure plaintiff could not show prejudice from allegedly invalid assignment by MERS as the assignment “merely substituted one creditor for another, without changing her obligations under the note”].)
In deciding the limited question on review, we are concerned only with prejudice in the sense of an injury sufficiently concrete and personal to provide standing, not with prejudice as a possible element of the wrongful foreclosure tort. (See fn. 4, ante.) As it relates to standing, we disagree with defendants’ analysis of prejudice from an illegal foreclosure. A foreclosed-upon borrower clearly meets the general standard for standing to sue by showing an invasion of his or her legally protected interests (Angelucci v. Century Supper Club (2007) 41 Cal.4th 160, 175)—the borrower has lost ownership to the home in an allegedly illegal trustee’s sale. (See Culhane, supra, 708 F.3d at p. 289 [foreclosed-upon borrower has sufficient personal stake in action against foreclosing entity to meet federal standing requirement].) Moreover, the bank or other entity that ordered the foreclosure would not have done so absent the allegedly void assignment. Thus “[t]he identified harm—the foreclosure—can be traced directly to [the foreclosing entity’s] exercise of the authority purportedly delegated by the assignment.” (Culhane, at p. 290.)
Nor is it correct that the borrower has no cognizable interest in the identity of the party enforcing his or her debt. Though the borrower is not entitled to object to an assignment of the promissory note, he or she is obligated to pay the debt, or suffer loss of the security, only to a person or entity that has actually been assigned the debt. (See Cockerell v. Title Ins. & Trust Co., supra, 42 Cal.2d at p. 292 [party claiming under an assignment must prove fact of assignment].) The borrower owes money not to the world at large but to a particular person or institution, and only the person or institution entitled to payment may enforce the debt by foreclosing on the security.
It is no mere “procedural nicety,” from a contractual point of view, to insist that only those with authority to foreclose on a borrower be permitted to do so. (Levitin, The Paper Chase: Securitization, Foreclosure, and the Uncertainty of Mortgage Title, supra, 63 Duke L.J. at p. 650.) “Such a view fundamentally misunderstands the mortgage contract. The mortgage contract is not simply an agreement that the home may be sold upon a default on the loan. Instead, it is an agreement that if the homeowner defaults on the loan, the mortgagee may sell the property pursuant to the requisite legal procedure.” (Ibid., italics added and omitted.)
The logic of defendants’ no-prejudice argument implies that anyone, even a stranger to the debt, could declare a default and order a trustee’s sale—and the borrower would be left with no recourse because, after all, he or she owed the debt to someone, though not to the foreclosing entity. This would be an “odd result” indeed. (Reinagel, supra, 735 F.3d at p. 225.) As a district court observed in rejecting the no-prejudice argument, “[b]anks are neither private attorneys general nor bounty hunters, armed with a roving commission to seek out defaulting homeowners and take away their homes in satisfaction of some other bank’s deed of trust.” (Miller v. Homecomings Financial, LLC (S.D.Tex. 2012) 881 F.Supp.2d 825, 832.)
Defendants note correctly that a plaintiff in Yvanova’s position, having suffered an allegedly unauthorized nonjudicial foreclosure of her home, need not now fear another creditor coming forward to collect the debt. The home can only be foreclosed once, and the trustee’s sale extinguishes the debt. (Code Civ. Proc., § 580d; Dreyfuss v. Union Bank of California, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 411.) But as the Attorney General points out in her amicus curiae brief, a holding that anyone may foreclose on a defaulting home loan borrower would multiply the risk for homeowners that they might face a foreclosure at some point in the life of their loans. The possibility that multiple parties could each foreclose at some time, that is, increases the borrower’s overall risk of foreclosure.
Defendants suggest that to establish prejudice the plaintiff must allege and prove that the true beneficiary under the deed of trust would have refrained from foreclosing on the plaintiff’s property. Whatever merit this rule would have as to prejudice as an element of the wrongful foreclosure tort, it misstates the type of injury required for standing. A homeowner who has been foreclosed on by one with no right to do so has suffered an injurious invasion of his or her legal rights at the foreclosing entity’s hands. No more is required for standing to sue. (Angelucci v. Century Supper Club, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 175.)
Neither Caulfield v. Sanders (1861) 17 Cal. 569 nor Seidell v. Tuxedo Land Co. (1932) 216 Cal. 165, upon which defendants rely, holds or implies a home loan borrower may not challenge a foreclosure by alleging a void assignment. In the first of these cases, we held a debtor on a contract for printing and advertising could not defend against collection of the debt on the ground it had been assigned without proper consultation among the assigning partners and for nominal consideration: “It is of no consequence to the defendant, as it in no respect affects his liability, whether the transfer was made at one time or another, or with or without consideration, or by one or by all the members of the firm.” (Caulfield v. Sanders, at p. 572.) In the second, we held landowners seeking to enjoin a foreclosure on a deed of trust to their land could not do so by challenging the validity of an assignment of the promissory note the deed of trust secured. (Seidell v. Tuxedo Land Co., at pp. 166, 169–170.) We explained that the assignment was made by an agent of the beneficiary, and that despite the landowner’s claim the agent lacked authority for the assignment, the beneficiary “is not now complaining.” (Id. at p. 170.) Neither decision discusses the distinction between allegedly void and merely voidable, and neither negates a borrower’s ability to challenge an assignment of his or her debt as void.
For these reasons, we conclude Glaski, supra, 218 Cal.App.4th 1079, was correct to hold a wrongful foreclosure plaintiff has standing to claim the foreclosing entity’s purported authority to order a trustee’s sale was based on a void assignment of the note and deed of trust. Jenkins, supra, 216 Cal.App.4th 497, spoke too broadly in holding a borrower lacks standing to challenge an assignment of the note and deed of trust to which the borrower was neither a party nor a third party beneficiary. Jenkins’s rule may hold as to claimed defects that would make the assignment merely voidable, but not as to alleged defects rendering the assignment absolutely void.
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. (Wilson v. HSBC Mortgage Servs., Inc., supra, 744 F.3d at p. 9; Reinagel, supra, 735 F.3d at pp. 224–225; Woods v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (1st Cir. 2013) 733 F.3d 349, 354; Culhane, supra, 708 F.3d at pp. 289–291; Miller v. Homecomings Financial, LLC, supra, 881 F.Supp.2d at pp. 831–832; Bank of America Nat. Assn. v. Bassman FBT, LLC, supra, 981 N.E.2d at pp. 7–8; Pike v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. (N.H. 2015) 121 A.3d 279, 281; Mruk v. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., supra, 82 A.3d at pp. 534–536; Dernier v. Mortgage Network, Inc. (Vt. 2013) 87 A.3d 465, 473.) Indeed, as commentators on the issue have stated: “[C]ourts generally permit challenges to assignments if such challenges would prove that the assignments were void as opposed to voidable.” (Zacks & Zacks, Not a Party: Challenging Mortgage Assignments (2014) 59 St. Louis U. L.J. 175, 180.)
That several federal courts applying California law have, largely in unreported decisions, agreed with Jenkins and declined to follow Glaski does not alter our conclusion. Neither Khan v. Recontrust Co. (N.D.Cal. 2015) 81 F.Supp.3d 867 nor Flores v. EMC Mort. Co. (E.D.Cal. 2014) 997 F.Supp.2d 1088 adds much to the discussion. In Khan, the district court found the borrower, as a nonparty to the pooling and servicing agreement, lacked standing to challenge a foreclosure on the basis of an unspecified flaw in the loan’s securitization; the court’s opinion does not discuss the distinction between a void assignment and a merely voidable one. (Khan v. Recontrust Co., supra, 81 F.Supp.3d at pp. 872–873.) In Flores, the district court, considering a wrongful foreclosure complaint that lacked sufficient clarity in its allegations including identification of the assignment or assignments challenged, the district court quoted and followed Jenkins’s reasoning on the borrower’s lack of standing to enforce an agreement to which he or she is not a party, without addressing the application of this reasoning to allegedly void assignments. (Flores v. EMC Mort. Co., supra, at pp. 1103–1105.)
Similarly, the unreported federal decisions applying California law largely fail to grapple with Glaski’s distinction between void and voidable assignments and tend merely to repeat Jenkins’s arguments that a borrower, as a nonparty to an assignment, may not enforce its terms and cannot show prejudice when in default on the loan, arguments we have found insufficient with regard to allegations of void assignments. While unreported federal court decisions may be cited in California as persuasive authority (Kan v. Guild Mortgage Co. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 736, 744, fn. 3), in this instance they lack persuasive value.
Defendants cite the decision in Rajamin v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. (2nd Cir. 2014) 757 F.3d 79 (Rajamin), as a “rebuke” of Glaski. Rajamin’s expressed disagreement with Glaski, however, was on the question whether, under New York law, an assignment to a securitized trust made after the trust’s closing date is void or merely voidable. (Rajamin, at p. 90.) As explained earlier, that question is outside the scope of our review and we express no opinion as to Glaski’s correctness on the point.
The Rajamin court did, in an earlier discussion, state generally that borrowers lack standing to challenge an assignment as violative of the securitized trust’s pooling and servicing agreement (Rajamin, supra, 757 F.3d at pp. 85–86), but the court in that portion of its analysis did not distinguish between void and voidable assignments. In a later portion of its analysis, the court “assum[ed] that ‘standing exists for challenges that contend that the assigning party never possessed legal title,’ ” a defect the plaintiffs claimed made the assignments void (id. at p. 90), but concluded the plaintiffs had not properly alleged facts to support their voidness theory (id. at pp. 90–91).
Nor do Kan v. Guild Mortgage Co., supra, 230 Cal.App.4th 736, and Siliga v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., supra, 219 Cal.App.4th 75 (Siliga), which defendants also cite, persuade us Glaski erred in finding borrower standing to challenge an assignment as void. The Kan court distinguished Glaski as involving a postsale wrongful foreclosure claim, as opposed to the preemptive suits involved in Jenkins and Kan itself. (Kan, at pp. 743–744.) On standing, the Kan court noted the federal criticism of Glaski and our grant of review in the present case, but found “no reason to wade into the issue of whether Glaski was correctly decided, because the opinion has no direct applicability to this preforeclosure action.” (Kan, at p. 745.)
Siliga, similarly, followed Jenkins in disapproving a preemptive lawsuit. (Siliga, supra, 219 Cal.App.4th at p. 82.) Without discussing Glaski, the Siliga court also held the borrower plaintiffs failed to show any prejudice from, and therefore lacked standing to challenge, the assignment of their deed of trust to the foreclosing entity. (Siliga, at p. 85.) As already explained, this prejudice analysis misses the mark in the wrongful foreclosure context. When a property has been sold at a trustee’s sale at the direction of an entity with no legal authority to do so, the borrower has suffered a cognizable injury.
In further support of a borrower’s standing to challenge the foreclosing party’s authority, plaintiff points to provisions of the recent legislation known as the California Homeowner Bill of Rights, enacted in 2012 and effective only after the trustee’s sale in this case. (See Leuras v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 49, 86, fn. 14.) Having concluded without reference to this legislation that borrowers do have standing to challenge an assignment as void, we need not decide whether the new provisions provide additional support for that holding.
Plaintiff has alleged that her deed of trust was assigned to the Morgan Stanley investment trust in December 2011, several years after both the securitized trust’s closing date and New Century’s liquidation in bankruptcy, a defect plaintiff claims renders the assignment void. Beyond their general claim a borrower has no standing to challenge an assignment of the deed of trust, defendants make several arguments against allowing plaintiff to plead a cause of action for wrongful foreclosure based on this allegedly void assignment.
Principally, defendants argue the December 2011 assignment of the deed of trust to Deutsche Bank, as trustee for the investment trust, was merely “confirmatory” of a 2007 assignment that had been executed in blank (i.e., without designation of assignee) when the loan was added to the trust’s investment pool. The purpose of the 2011 recorded assignment, defendants assert, was merely to comply with a requirement in the trust’s pooling and servicing agreement that documents be recorded before foreclosures are initiated. An amicus curiae supporting defendants’ position asserts that the general practice in home loan securitization is to initially execute assignments of loans and mortgages or deeds of trust to the trustee in blank and not to record them; the mortgage or deed of trust is subsequently endorsed by the trustee and recorded if and when state law requires. (See Rajamin, supra, 757 F.3d at p. 91.) This claim, which goes not to the legal issue of a borrower’s standing to sue for wrongful foreclosure based on a void assignment, but rather to the factual question of when the assignment in this case was actually made, is outside the limited scope of our review. The same is true of defendants’ remaining factual claims, including that the text of the investment trust’s pooling and servicing agreement demonstrates plaintiff’s deed of trust was assigned to the trust before it closed.
We conclude a home loan borrower has standing to claim a nonjudicial foreclosure was wrongful because an assignment by which the foreclosing party purportedly took a beneficial interest in the deed of trust was not merely voidable but void, depriving the foreclosing party of any legitimate authority to order a trustee’s sale. The Court of Appeal took the opposite view and, solely on that basis, concluded plaintiff could not amend her operative complaint to plead a cause of action for wrongful foreclosure. We must therefore reverse the Court of Appeal’s judgment and allow that court to reconsider the question of an amendment to plead wrongful foreclosure. We express no opinion on whether plaintiff has alleged facts showing a void assignment, or on any other issue relevant to her ability to state a claim for wrongful foreclosure.
The judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed and the matter is remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with our opinion.
Tsvetana Yvanova, in pro. per.; Law Offices of Richard L. Antognini and Richard L. Antognini for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Law Office of Mark F. Didak and Mark F. Didak as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Nicklas A. Akers, Assistant Attorney General, Michele Van Gelderen and Sanna R. Singer, Deputy Attorneys General, for Attorney General of California as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.
Lisa R. Jaskol; Kent Qian; and Hunter Landerholm for Public Counsel, National Housing Law Project and Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.
The Sturdevant Law Firm and James C. Sturdevant for National Association of Consumer Advocates and National Consumer Law Center as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.
The Arkin Law Firm, Sharon J. Arkin; Arbogast Law and David M. Arbogast for Consumer Attorneys of California as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.
Houser & Allison, Eric D. Houser, Robert W. Norman, Jr., Patrick S. Ludeman; Bryan Cave, Kenneth Lee Marshall, Nafiz Cekirge, Andrea N. Winternitz and Sarah Samuelson for Defendants and Respondents.
Pfeifer & De La Mora and Michael R. Pfeifer for California Mortgage Bankers Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents.
Denton US and Sonia Martin for Structured Finance Industry Group, Inc., as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents.
Goodwin Proctor, Steven A. Ellis and Nicole S. Tate-Naghi for California Bankers Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents.
Wright, Finlay & Zak and Jonathan D. Fink for American Legal & Financial Network and United Trustees Association as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents.
Counsel who argued in Supreme Court (not intended for publication with opinion):
Richard L. Antognini
Law Offices of Richard L. Antognini
2036 Nevada City Highway, Suite 636
Grass Valley, CA 95945-7700
Kenneth Lee Marshall
560 Mission Street, Suite 2500
San Francisco, CA 94105
 The superior court granted defendants’ request for judicial notice of the recorded deed of trust, assignment of the deed of trust, substitution of trustee, notices of default and of trustee’s sale, and trustee’s deed upon sale. The existence and facial contents of these recorded documents were properly noticed in the trial court under Evidence Code sections 452, subdivisions (c) and (h), and 453. (See Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 256, 264–266.) Under Evidence Code section 459, subdivision (a), notice by this court is therefore mandatory. We therefore take notice of their existence and contents, though not of disputed or disputable facts stated therein. (See Glaski v. Bank of America (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1079, 1102.)
 All further unspecified statutory references are to the Civil Code.
 Somewhat confusingly, both the purported assignee’s authority to foreclose and the borrower’s ability to challenge that authority have been framed as questions of “standing.” (See, e.g., Levitin, The Paper Chase: Securitization, Foreclosure, and the Uncertainty of Mortgage Title, supra, 63 Duke L.J. at p. 644 [discussing purported assignee’s “standing to foreclose”]; Jenkins, supra, 216 Cal.App.4th at p. 515 [borrower lacks “standing to enforce [assignment] agreements” to which he or she is not a party]; Bank of America Nat. Assn. v. Bassman FBT, LLC (Ill.App. Ct. 2012) 981 N.E.2d 1, 7 [“Each party contends that the other lacks standing.”].) We use the term here in the latter sense of a borrower’s legal authority to challenge the validity of an assignment.  It has been held that, at least when seeking to set aside the foreclosure sale, the plaintiff must also show prejudice and a tender of the amount of the secured indebtedness, or an excuse of tender. (Chavez v. Indymac Mortgage Services, supra, 219 Cal.App.4th at p. 1062.) Tender has been excused when, among other circumstances, the plaintiff alleges the foreclosure deed is facially void, as arguably is the case when the entity that initiated the sale lacked authority to do so. (Ibid.; In re Cedano (Bankr. 9th Cir. 2012) 470 B.R. 522, 529–530; Lester v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank (N.D.Cal. 2013) 926 F.Supp.2d 1081, 1093; Barrionuevo v. Chase Bank, N.A., supra, 885 F.Supp.2d 964, 969–970.) Our review being limited to the standing question, we express no opinion as to whether plaintiff Yvanova must allege tender to state a cause of action for wrongful foreclosure under the circumstances of this case. Nor do we discuss potential remedies for a plaintiff in Yvanova’s circumstances; at oral argument, plaintiff’s counsel conceded she seeks only damages. As to prejudice, we do not address it as an element of wrongful foreclosure. We do, however, discuss whether plaintiff has suffered a cognizable injury for standing purposes.
 The mortgage securitization process has been concisely described as follows: “To raise funds for new mortgages, a mortgage lender sells pools of mortgages into trusts created to receive the stream of interest and principal payments from the mortgage borrowers. The right to receive trust income is parceled into certificates and sold to investors, called certificateholders. The trustee hires a mortgage servicer to administer the mortgages by enforcing the mortgage terms and administering the payments. The terms of the securitization trusts as well as the rights, duties, and obligations of the trustee, seller, and servicer are set forth in a Pooling and Servicing Agreement (‘PSA’).” (BlackRock Financial Mgmt. v. Ambac Assur. Corp. (2d Cir. 2012) 673 F.3d 169, 173.)
 The version of Reinagel cited in Glaski, published at 722 F.3d 700, was amended on rehearing and superseded by Reinagel, supra, 735 F.3d 220.
 As the Culhane court explained, MERS was formed by a consortium of residential mortgage lenders and investors to streamline the transfer of mortgage loans and thereby facilitate their securitization. A member lender may name MERS as mortgagee on a loan the member originates or owns; MERS acts solely as the lender’s “nominee,” having legal title but no beneficial interest in the loan. When a loan is assigned to another MERS member, MERS can execute the transfer by amending its electronic database. When the loan is assigned to a nonmember, MERS executes the assignment and ends its involvement. (Culhane, supra, 708 F.3d at p. 287.)
 Massachusetts General Laws chapter 183, section 21, similarly to our Civil Code section 2924, provides that the power of sale in a mortgage may be exercised by “the mortgagee or his executors, administrators, successors or assigns.”
 On the merits, the Culhane court rejected the plaintiff’s claim that MERS never properly held her mortgage, giving her standing to challenge the assignment from MERS to Aurora as void (Culhane, supra, 708 F.3d at p. 291); the court held MERS’s role as the lender’s nominee allowed it to hold and assign the mortgage under Massachusetts law. (Id. at pp. 291–293.)
 The Reinagel court nonetheless rejected the plaintiffs’ claim of an invalid assignment after the closing date of a securitized trust, observing they could not enforce the terms of trust because they were not intended third-party beneficiaries. The court’s holding appears, however, to rest at least in part on its conclusion that a violation of the closing date “would not render the assignments void” but merely allow them to be avoided at the behest of a party or third-party beneficiary. (Reinagel, supra, 735 F.3d at p. 228.) As discussed above in relation to Glaski, that question is not within the scope of our review.
 We cite decisions on federal court standing only for their persuasive value in determining what California standing law should be, without any assumption that standing in the two systems is identical. The California Constitution does not impose the same “ ‘case-or-controversy’ ” limit on state courts’ jurisdiction as article III of the United States Constitution does on federal courts. (Grosset v. Wenaas (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1100, 1117, fn. 13.)
 In speaking of personal standing to sue, we set aside such doctrines as taxpayer standing to seek injunctive relief (see Code Civ. Proc., § 526a) and “ ‘ “public right/public duty” ’ ” standing to seek a writ of mandate (see Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Manhattan Beach (2011) 52 Cal.4th 155, 166).
 We disapprove Jenkins v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., supra, 216 Cal.App.4th 497, Siliga v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., supra, 219 Cal.App.4th 75, Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., supra, 198 Cal.App.4th 256, and Herrera v. Federal National Mortgage Assn., supra, 205 Cal.App.4th 1495, to the extent they held borrowers lack standing to challenge an assignment of the deed of trust as void.
 Plaintiff cites newly added provisions that prohibit any entity from initiating a foreclosure process “unless it is the holder of the beneficial interest under the mortgage or deed of trust, the original trustee or the substituted trustee under the deed of trust, or the designated agent of the holder of the beneficial interest” (§ 2924, subd. (a)(6)); require the loan servicer to inform the borrower, before a notice of default is filed, of the borrower’s right to request copies of any assignments of the deed of trust “required to demonstrate the right of the mortgage servicer to foreclose” (§ 2923.55, subd. (b)(1)(B)(iii)); and require the servicer to ensure the documentation substantiates the right to foreclose (§ 2924.17, subd. (b)). The legislative history indicates the addition of these provisions was prompted in part by reports that nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings were being initiated on behalf of companies with no authority to foreclose. (See Sen. Rules Com., Conference Rep. on Sen. Bill No. 900 (2011–2012 Reg. Sess.) as amended June 27, 2012, p. 26.)
*Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
Regarding this one, Garfield obviously does not realize that a borrower no longer has an interest in a foreclosed property, and there has no legal entitlement to TILA-rescind the loan that the court has discharged through a foreclosure judgment and sale of the property.
Okay, let me give it to you this way. I recently ran across a desperate mortgage victim whom Neil Garfield had gouged for $2500 for this absolutely useless tom-foolery memorandum. Garfield speculates about numerous legal theories which the court shot down in the above cited Jones v Select Portfolio Servicing opinion. You can find more case opinions destroying the bogus legal theories for which he bilks his desperate clients.
If you get bored to death, go to the bottom for SALVATION. Meanwhile, note that I have replaced potentially sensitive information with Blah or Blah Blah in order to protect the identity of Garfield’s victim.
—————–Start of Garfield Cure for Insomni… z-z-z–z-z —————
This is a review and report and not a definitive statement of opinion on the entire case strategy. Since the property is located in Florida and Mr. Garfield is licensed in Florida, he is qualified to give both expert opinions and legal opinions.
DATE: whenever 201
RE: Blah Blah and his Wife
Phone No.: Blah
Email Address: Blah
JUDGMENT ENTERED years ago,
SALE DATE CANCELED MULTIPLE TIMES
FEDERAL ACTION TO ENJOIN USE OF NOTE AND MORTGAGE SUGGESTED
The address of the property in question is BlaB Street, Blahville, Florida, in Blah County.
The property is in foreclosure. As of last year Mr. BlahBlah reports that he hired an attorney, started modification and is not current on payments.
He has requested a review and commentary in connection with his property and his loan.
He has already filed a petition for relief in bankruptcy court under Chapter 7 and apparently converted to Chapter 13. Motion to lift stay was filed and presumably granted. The name of his attorney in the State Court action, Case No. yeah sure, wherever County.
Mr. BlahBlah reports that in years ago they were 3 months behind in their payments. Acting through a HUD counselor there was apparently an agreement that was reached in September Years ago where they would catch up on the three payments. According to Mr. BlahBlah Wells Fargo broke the agreement, refused to discuss the matter any further and Mr. BlahBlah and his wife apparently were served with a summons and compliant that years ago. If they have correspondence proving the existence of the deal, then this would be a point to raise in defense as a possible violation of either estoppel1 or dual tracking, which was not passed until after the agreement.
If the agreement can be proven (they will most likely deny it), then even without the Dodd-Frank prohibition against dual tracking, the homeowners reasonably relied upon the existence of the agreement and made payments that were accepted. Wells Fargo has a history of accepting payments under oral modifications and then abandoning the agreement without accounting for the payments — which often makes the default letter wrong as to the missing payments.
Disclosures as to the true funding of the origination of the loan, the acquisition of the debt (as opposed to the acquisition of the paper) and the true party in interest who could be plaintiff are all absent, which is the same thing that I have seen as an expert witness and as an attorney many times with Wells Fargo. Many entities, like World Savings and Wachovia boasted they were funding their own loans. This was nearly never true. The loan papers may have been originated back in years ago but the disclosure of the money trail has never been made.
Mr. BlahBlah answered the summons and complaint without the help of legal counsel and served interrogatories on the plaintiff that he says were never answered.
He has apparently been through several attorneys that were merely kicking the can down the road to buy more time without making mortgage payments but of course having Mr. BlahBlah make monthly payments to the attorney.
According to the registration statement submitted by Mr. BlahBlah the original loan was with World Savings Mortgage which merged into Wachovia and then Wells Fargo. I think what he meant was World Savings Bank which was acquired by Wachovia Bank which in turn was acquired by Wells Fargo Bank. The case was filed as Wells Fargo Bank as plaintiff. From prior experience we know that this is probably a ruse intended to cover up the fact that they don’t know who the creditor is and they are hoping that a judge will simply take their word for it.
Mr. BlahBlah has provided a docket from the Clerk of the Circuit Court which indicates that the property has been set for sale several times. This would indicate in turn that a final judgment of foreclosure was entered. However I do not see on the docket the description of an order granting summary judgment or a final judgment of foreclosure entered in favor of Wells Fargo. I presume that such a judgment exists or the sale would never have been scheduled.
As of December 30, 2015 Wells Fargo is showing a balance due of $93,979.25, with an unpaid principle balance of $200,338.10, an escrow balance of $31,855.05, carrying an interest rate of 6.5 percent with a maturity date in July 2049.
Based upon my knowledge of the parties involved, and specifically in this case Loan No. whatever2, I believe that the loan is in fact claimed by a trust which in fact does not own it. The loan was in my opinion most likely never funded by World Savings Bank, Wachovia or Wells Fargo. It is my opinion that none of those entities paid for either the origination or the acquisition of the loan and that any documents to the contrary are fabricated and most likely forged. The system at Wells Fargo if this case actually goes to trial at some point will show that probably Fanny Mae or Freddie Mac was the “investor” from the start. However, since the government sponsored entities generally function in only two areas3, it seems unlikely, to say the least, that the investor would be correctly identified in the Wells Fargo system that they would use at trial unless they have changed their method of fabricating business records.
Client advises that the loan number changed recently. The reasons for this change should be investigated.
The statutory authority of the GSE’s (Fannie and Freddie) allow for them to operate as guarantors and/or Master Trustees of REMIC Trusts who were intended to own the debt, note and mortgage. The “hidden” REMIC Trusts operate the same as private label and publicly registered REMIC Trusts. And they suffer from the same defects — the money from investors never made it into any account owned by the Trust or the Trustee, which means that the Trust could not possibly have paid for loans. The Trust would be an inactive trust devoid of any business, operations, assets, liabilities, income or expenses.
For reasons that I will discuss below, it is my opinion that the homeowners in this case should send a notice of rescission and we will discuss whether that notice should be recorded. In addition there should be consideration of a federal lawsuit seeking to enforce the rescission and seeking an injunction to prevent Wells Fargo from using the note and mortgage against the BlahBlahs. I would further add that in my opinion from my review of the documents that were provided by the client there is a strong likelihood of success using standard foreclosure defense strategies.
In the court file is a notice of action which states that Blah BlahBlah and Blaha BlahBlah both stated as avoiding service at the address of Blah Blah Street, Blahville, Florida, . This indicates to me that the service in years ago was a “drive by” service in which no real effort was made to find or serve Mr. or Mrs. BlahBlah.
This in turn leads me to believe that this was typical foreclosure mill actions and that Wells Fargo still has not fulfilled its obligation to review the business records to determine the ownership or balance of the loan. Or to put it differently, they probably did know about the problems with ownership and balance of the loan and wanted the foreclosure sale anyway. Based upon my preliminary review it would appear that Wells Fargo Bank made payments to the certificate holders of a trust under a category known mainly in the industry as “servicer advances.”
Based upon their statement I would say that their servicer advances totaled more than $90,000.00. The longer the case goes the higher is the value of their claim to recover their “servicer advances.” However, those advances, while made, came from a comingled account consisting entirely of investor money. Therefore there is no actual action for recovery of the servicer advances.
The case was apparently filed in years ago. Or if the case was not filed at that time then additional paperwork was added to the file at that point. Since the case number refers to the year years ago I am presuming that they filed a skeleton case in order to have the case filed before the end of the year.
The complaint is interesting in that, as usual, Wells Fargo does not allege that it is the owner of the debt. It alleges that it is the owner and holder of the note and mortgage. And of course it alleges that a default exists but it does not state the party to whom the money is owed nor the statement of ultimate facts upon which the court could arrive at the conclusion that the actual creditor has suffered a default or loss as a result of the payments being stopped.
The alleged loan, which in my opinion was never funded by World Savings Bank, was a reverse amortization (pick a payment) loan. This loan was probably sold in one form or another 20 or 30 times. The capital from the sale of the loans probably funded many other loans.
There is a request filed in years ago for the original promissory note, and the contact information for the current holder of the note, which was never answered. This might have some relevancy to a claim contesting jurisdiction of the court.
While the docket that was sent to me by Mr. BlahBlah did not appear to contain the final judgment for the plaintiff, the documents that he sent and which were uploaded contain a final judgment for plaintiff. The final judgment apparently was a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff on years-ago at 1:30 p.m.
As expected, the documents in the possession of Mr. BlahBlah contain a mortgage servicing transfer disclosure. Hence we have evidence of the transfer of servicing rights but not transfer of ownership of the debt.4 In my opinion this corroborates my conclusion that the loan was subject to claims of securitization starting at a time before consummation could have ever occurred. In my opinion the loan was table funded, which means that the actual source of funds for the loan was another party to whom the documents would be “assigned” immediately after, or even before the apparent “closing.”
This is especially relevant to the issue of whether the alleged loan is subject to claims (probably false claims) of securitization. Each of the alleged entities in the “Chain” had robust servicing capacities. The transfers of servicing duties makes no sense and explains nothing except that the usual pattern of musical chairs was being employed to confuse the issues surrounding “holder” of the note etc. The presumptions that are ordinarily used for a holder of a note should not be allowed,in my opinion, because of the history of flagrant violations by Wells Fargo and its predecessors. Producing evidence of a pattern of conduct of fabrication, forgery, robo-signing etc should enable the attorney to argue that the presumptions should not apply, thus requiring Wells Fargo to prove the money trial and ownership of the debt, which they will never do.
In my opinion the mortgage document was improper in that it failed to disclose a hidden balloon payment. By having negative amortization or reverse amortization, the balance that is owed as principal continues to increase. Under the terms of the mortgage when it reaches 115 percent of the original loan principal, the loan automatically reverts to standard amortization which is what caused so many people, including the BlahBlahs, to default. Borrowers were seduced into taking these highly complex loan products under the supposition that they would later be able to refinance again, taking “equity” out of the home and providing them with the resources to make the payments. The effect of these loans is to cause a balloon payment at the end of a short period of time. Thus the balloon was not disclosed and the term of the loan was not disclosed because the full amortization of the loan was beyond the financial capacity of the “borrower.”
In my opinion the assertion by Wells Fargo that it is the investor, the creditor, the lender, or the successor lender is and always has been false. It appears that no sale of the property has taken place and that none is scheduled based upon information I received from Mr. BlahBlah recently in a telephone consultation. Even though a judgment has been entered, it is my opinion that the rights and obligations of the parties are still defined by the alleged note and the alleged mortgage. Hence the sending of a notice of rescission and the recording of a notice of interest in real property under Florida Statute 712.05 would be appropriate as a strategy. I also think that an action filed in federal court to enjoin Wells Fargo from the use of the note and mortgage would be appropriate. The basis for the action would be, after notice of rescission had been sent, and presumably after the 20 days from receipt of the notice of rescission had expired, the loan contract was cancelled, the note and mortgage became void as of the date of mailing of the notice of rescission.
There is also another strategy of alleging a fraud upon the court, but I don’t think that would get much traction.
What I think can get some traction is a lawsuit against Wells Fargo for having presented the false evidence to the court. The difference is that you are not accusing the court of wrongdoing, you are accusing Wells Fargo of wrongdoing and taking advantages. I believe that considering the history that the BlahBlahs report in their narrative that substantial compensatory damages might be awarded, but that punitive damages do not appear to be likely at this time. That is not to say that punitive damages will not be awarded. As time goes on, more and more courts are becoming aware of the fact that the type of foreclosure system has been a sham. Each time another judgment for settlement is reached it becomes apparent that the banks are continuing to engage in the same behavior and simply paying fines for it as a cost of doing business.
As Mr. BlahBlah knows, I do not accept many engagements to directly represent homeowners in these actions. I think that in this case I would be willing to accept the engagement, along with co-counsel, Patrick Giunta. I would have to review this file with him to confirm, but the likelihood is that the initial retainer would be in excess of $5,000.00 and that the monthly payment of our fee would be at least $2,000.00. There would also be court costs and other expenses amounting to over $1,000.00.
Another option is to seek out another attorney who is willing to take on the case and use my services as litigation support. The hourly rate I charge for all matters, whether as attorney or expert witness is $650.00. The hourly rate of most other attorneys is significantly below that. The actual amount of work required from me if I am in the position of litigation support would be vastly reduced and thus the expense of having me work on the BlahBlah file would be significantly reduced, enabling the BlahBlahs to hire counsel who is receptive to me providing litigation support.
In all engagements, in which I am the attorney, or providing litigation support, there is also a contingency fee that varies from 20 percent to 35 percent of any amount paid in hand to the homeowner. Specifically this means that if the case is settled or resolved in a manner in which title to the property becomes unencumbered, the contingency fee would not apply to the house itself, but only to other damages that were paid in connection with the settlement or collection of a judgment.
————— End of Garfield Blather ————–
Enough of Garfield’s nonsense – HERE is your Salvation
Go to the Mortgage Attack site linked below and READ it. There you will find salvation for mortgage woes – absolutely the only reliably workable technology for putting money back in the pocket of borrowers with crooked mortgages.
Scammers of every stripe seem to crawl the nation looking for gullible home loan borrowers facing foreclosure, in order to sell them a worthless mortgage rescue service for gargantuan fees.
And when those borrowers finally learn about Mortgage Attack, they have the gall to whine that they don’t have the money to pay for the comprehensive mortgage examination they should have bought at the beginning of their trouble.
Why should borrowers invest in a mortgage exam?
Borrowers need the mortgage exam to prove injury and launch a Mortgage Attack against those who hurt them. Injurious parties can include the lender, servicer, appraiser, mortgage broker, realtor, closer, title company, lawyer, and any others connected to your loan transaction. Borrowers need the mortgage exam service because they lack the knowledge, experience, and skill to do it themselves.
And they need the exam because Mortgage Attack constitutes the ONLY demonstrably RELIABLE METHOD borrowers can use to collect monetary damages, set-offs from their debt, a loan balance reduction at favorable terms, or even the house free and clear.
You had the money to pay the scammers selling securitization audits, loan audits, and other useless services like the scams in the below press releases. So DON’T tell me you don’t have the money for a proper mortgage exam that provides you with the proof that will convince a court to order a damages award to you for injuries you suffered.
Otherwise, without the mortgage exam integral to the Mortgage Attack method, YOU WILL LOSE THE HOUSE, as you should, for breaching your note and failing to challenge the validity of the loan.
Here’s the proof that YOU have the money for the comprehensive mortgage examination that the Mortgage Attack Maven recommends. AND, here’s the proof that people like you have the money to pay upward of $10,000 or more to SCAMMERS.
Remember that a DOZEN such scammers get away with their crimes for every scammer the government catches and prosecutes. And people like you emptied their wallets for them.
So, DON’T TELL me that you can’t afford a mortgage exam. Go GET the money and order your mortgage examination today.
PROOF 1: scammer imprisoned for bilking 400 mortgage victims out of $15,000 each.
Whittier Woman Sentenced to Nearly 6 Years in Prison for Having Duped 400 Victim Homeowners – Many Spanish Speakers – of Nearly $4 Million with False Promises of Eliminating Their Mortgages
LOS ANGELES—A Whittier woman was sentenced today to nearly 6 years in prison for her lead role in a scheme that falsely promised to eliminate mortgage debts for approximately 400 distressed homeowners who each paid a $15,000 fee, totaling nearly $4 million in victim payments. Instead of working on behalf of the homeowners, the woman simply sent worthless “Sovereign Citizen” paperwork to lenders—paperwork that did nothing to affect the mortgage of a single homeowner.
Maria Marcela Gonzalez, 45, was sentenced by Judge Stephen V. Wilson in United States District Court in Los Angeles, for two counts of making a false bankruptcy declaration. In rejecting her request for a probationary sentence and imposing the 70-month sentence, Judge Wilson said that the defendant’s actions were “callous and in gross disregard of the law.”
Gonzalez, who pled guilty in July of this year, started the Crown Point Education Inc. scheme in early 2010 and operated from offices in Montebello. She admitted in her plea agreement that she spoke at seminars to recruit distressed homeowners and salespersons in the Crown Point program and ran the day-to-day operations of the scheme. Many of the victims were primarily or exclusively Spanish speakers.
In her plea agreement, Gonzalez admitted that she and others promised distressed homeowners at these seminars that, in exchange for fees that were generally $15,000 per property, Crown Point would eliminate the homeowners’ mortgages within six to eight months through a secret process that involved sending packets of documents to lenders. Even though she told victims that she could eliminate their mortgage woes, Gonzalez admitted in her plea agreement that the process had never been successful. Gonzalez failed to tell distressed homeowners that earlier Crown Point clients had lost their houses to foreclosure and been evicted from their houses.
In the plea agreement, Gonzalez admitted that she worked with co-schemer Jude Lopez, who was also convicted and sentenced to a probationary term, and Ernesto Diaz, who was charged but failed to appear and is currently a fugitive. Lopez admitted in his plea agreement that he filed bankruptcy documents in the names of Crown Point clients to delay foreclosure and eviction. Diaz admitted in his plea agreement that Crown Point filed many bankruptcy documents without the knowledge of the company’s clients and that signatures of debtors and notaries were forged on many documents filed with the bankruptcy court.
The claims made to distressed homeowners were based on discredited Sovereign Citizen claims that mortgages are invalid because the banks did not actually lend the money used to fund mortgages, and the notes were securitized.
The case against Gonzalez, Diaz, and Lopez was conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
PROOF 2: Scammer indicted for bilking 13 mortgage victims out of up to $8000 each for mortgage amelioration service.
Internal Revenue Service – Criminal Investigation
Cincinnati Field Office
Special Agent in Charge Kathy A. Enstrom
Date: Wednesday, September 30, 2015
Contact: Craig Casserly
IRS – Criminal Investigation
401 N. Front Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215
CI Release #: CINFO-2015-35
COLUMBUS BUSINESSMAN INDICTED IN “MORTGAGE AMELIORATION” INVESTMENT FRAUD SCHEME
COLUMBUS, OHIO — A federal grand jury here has indicted Gary Jones, 52, of Columbus, Ohio, charging him with thirteen counts of mail fraud, eight counts of money laundering, and four counts of willfully failing to file a federal income tax return with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
Carter M. Stewart, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio, and Kathy A. Enstrom, Special Agent in Charge, Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation, Cincinnati Field Office, announced the indictment returned today.
According to the indictment, between January 2010 and March 2012, Jones was the managing member of 3ARCK Capital Group, LLC, also d/b/a Three Arck Capital Group, LLC (hereinafter “3Arck”). Jones is alleged to have been the sole authorized signatory on several bank accounts for the benefit of 3Arck, which had a banking relationship with Fifth Third Bank, PNC Bank, and J.P. Morgan Chase Bank. In addition, Jones allegedly partnered with an individual in an investment company known as North American Realty Services Corporation, LLC (hereinafter “NARSCOR”).
It has been alleged that between May 2009 and September 2012, Jones, by himself, through his position at 3Arck, and through his partnership with NARSCOR, raised funds under false pretenses through a process called “mortgage amelioration.” Through “mortgage amelioration,” Jones represented that he could eliminate or modify mortgages held by banks, based on theories that the mortgages were invalid or illegal because the banks had no right to foreclose on the loans. Jones represented that, after a long process, the banks would acknowledge that the mortgages and/or foreclosures were not legitimate.
Jones allegedly represented that he could present claims to the banks and the courts on behalf of property owners, and that he could either force the banks to return properties that had already been repossessed through foreclosures, or that he could get restitution for property owners upon whom the foreclosures had occurred. Jones allegedly represented that the property owners could then either have their mortgages completely eliminated, or at the very least, modified with lower payments and a better term. In addition, Jones allegedly represented that those who had already lost their homes would be rewarded with monetary compensation or the return of bank-owned properties.
It has further been alleged that the property owners or investors could place a property into the “mortgage amelioration” program by paying an application fee of between $3,995 and $7,995. The fee was to be held in an escrow account and was represented to be 100% refundable, whether the process was successful or unsuccessful.
Allegedly, Jones represented that the only expenditures out of the escrow account were to be for incidentals necessary for filings with the courts and for the creation of a trust. Even if expenditures were made from funds in the escrow account, the fee was to be returned in full to the investor at the end of the process. Once the trust was created, Jones represented that he would “ameliorate” the mortgages on the properties through communications with the banks and the courts. After the mortgage had been “ameliorated,” the property owner, allegedly, could either buy the property back from the trust or walk away from the property.
It has been alleged that the property owners or investors either mailed or e-mailed their application and other documentation. The application fees were paid by mailing checks or by wire transfer to Jones, 3Arck, Jones’s partner at NARSCOR, or to NARSCOR. Jones represented to victims that he had completed numerous “mortgage amelioration” deals and had a 100% success rate; however, it has been alleged that no mortgages were ever successfully eliminated or reduced through the program. Also, despite representations that the refundable application fees would be kept in escrow accounts, it has been alleged that the money was deposited into bank accounts controlled by Jones and no application fees were ever refunded; rather, Jones used the homeowners’ and investors’ funds for personal use.
It has been alleged that Jones failed to file a federal income tax return with the IRS for the 2009-2012 income tax years, despite earning gross income in the amount of $280,340 in 2009; $1,090,304.54 in 2010; $880,791.12 in 2011; and $146,554.50 in 2012.
Mail fraud carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000. Money laundering carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000. Failing to file an income tax return with the IRS carries a maximum penalty of 1 year in prison and a fine of up to $100,000.
“Mr. Jones’s actions not only caused negative ramifications to those financially connected to him, but also the honest taxpayer when he committed significant tax fraud violations as detailed in the indictment,” said Kathy A. Enstrom, Special Agent in Charges, IRS Criminal Investigation, Cincinnati Field Office. “Honest and law abiding citizens are fed up with the likes of those who use deceit and fraud to line their pockets with other people’s money as well as skirt their tax obligations.”
This case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Jessica H. Kim and was investigated by special agents of IRS-Criminal Investigation.
An indictment merely contains allegations, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law.
# # #
PROOF 3: USDC fines and sentences perps for $7 million Loan Mod Scam
Department of Justice
U.S. Attorney’s Office
Central District of California
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, December 7, 2015
Operator of Inland Empire Loan Modification Scam that Targeted Distressed Homeowners Sentenced to 18 Years in Federal Prison
RIVERSIDE, California – The founder and co-owner of a Rancho Cucamonga business was sentenced today to 18 years in federal prison for orchestrating a scheme that offered bogus loan modification programs to thousands of financially distressed homeowners who lost more than $7 million when they paid for services that were never provided.
Andrea Ramirez, 47, of Rancho Cucamonga, was sentenced today by United States District Judge Virginia A. Phillips, who also ordered the defendant to pay $6,764,743 in restitution.
Ramirez was the organizer of a telemarketing operation known under a series of names – including 21st Century Legal Services, Inc. – that bilked more than 4,000 homeowners across the nation, many of whom lost their homes to foreclosure. Ramirez was sentenced today after pleading guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and wire fraud.
“This fraudulent company purposely targeted homeowners who were extremely vulnerable because they were facing foreclosure,” said United States Attorney Eileen M. Decker. “Ramirez and her co-defendants made false promises to desperate homeowners, often took the last of their money and then abandoned them. Her contempt for her victims will put her in federal prison for nearly two decades.”
Previously in this case, the other co-owner of 21st Century – Christopher Paul George, 45, of Rancho Cucamonga, was sentenced by Judge Phillips to 20 years in federal prison.
A total of 11 defendants linked to 21st Century have been convicted of federal fraud charges as a result of an investigation conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation; IRS – Criminal Investigation; the United States Postal Inspection Service; the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP); and the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Office of Inspector General.
“As the ringleader in a scheme to dupe thousands of distressed homeowners out of their last dollar at the height of the financial crisis, Andrea Ramirez earned the next 18 years in federal prison, which she should use to reflect on her victims,” said Christy Goldsmith Romero, Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP).
During a 15-month period that began in the middle of 2008, Ramirez operated 21st Century, which defrauded financially distressed homeowners by making false promises and guarantees regarding 21stCentury’s ability to negotiate loan modifications for homeowners. Employees of 21st Century made numerous misrepresentations to victims during the course of the scheme, including falsely telling victims that 21st Century was operating a loan modification program sponsored by the United States government. Victims were generally instructed to stop communicating with their mortgage lenders and to cease making their mortgage payments.
21st Century employees contacted distressed homeowners through cold calls, newspaper ads and mailings. The company also controlled websites that advertised loan modification services. Once they contacted the distressed homeowners, 21st Century employees often falsely told clients that the company was operating through a federal government program, that they would be able to obtain new mortgages with specific interest rates and reduced payments, and that attorneys would negotiate loan modifications with their lenders. 21st Century employees regularly instructed financially distressed homeowners to cease making mortgage payments to their lenders and to cut off all contact with their lenders because they were being represented by 21st Century. On some occasions, 21stCentury employees told homeowners that 21st Century was using the fees paid by the homeowner to make mortgage payments, when Ramirez, George and their co-defendants simply were pocketing the homeowners’ money.
After federal authorities executed a search warrant at 21st Century, Ramirez relocated 21st Century’s offices, renamed the company and made it appear it was operating out of Las Vegas, Nevada.
“Fraudulent mortgage fraud schemes affect consumers at the most basic level, jeopardizing their ability to retain ownership of their homes,” said Robert Wemyss, Inspector in Charge of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service – Los Angeles Division. “The U.S. Postal Inspection Service will continue to investigate these crimes to protect consumers and our nation’s mail system from being used for illegal or dangerous purposes.”
Special Agent in Charge Erick Martinez of IRS-Criminal Investigation of the Los Angeles Field Office stated: “Ms. Ramirez took advantage of unsuspecting homeowners hoping to keep a roof over their heads. Hopefully she will now understand that her irresponsible actions have real consequences.”
In addition to Ramirez and George, nine other defendants have been convicted for their roles in the 21st Century scam. They are:
• Crystal Taiwana Buck, 40, of Long Beach, who persuaded numerous victims to pay fees to 21stCentury, was sentenced to five years in prison;
• Albert DiRoberto, 62, of Fullerton, who handled both sales and marketing – which included making a commercial for 21st Century – was sentenced to five years in prison;
• Yadira Garcia Padilla, 38, of Rancho Cucamonga – who, among other things, posted bogus positive reviews about 21st Century on the Internet – was sentenced to four years in prison;
• Michael Bruce Bates, of Moreno Valley, was sentenced to one year and one day in prison;
• Michael Lewis Parker, of Pomona, was sentenced to six years in prison;
• Catalina Deleon, of Glendora, is scheduled to be sentenced on December 14;
• Hamid Reza Shalviri, of Montebello, is scheduled to be sentenced on Thursday, December 10;
• Mindy Sue Holt, of San Bernardino, was sentenced to 18 months in prison; and
• Iris Melissa Pelayo, of Upland, was sentenced to four years in prison.
PROOF 4: Scammers Bilk 54 Mortgage Rescue victims out of $220,000
Department of Justice
U.S. Attorney’s Office
Northern District of Illinois
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
Three Defendants Indicted For Allegedly Swindling 54 Victims Of $220,000 In Fees In Mortgage “Rescue” Fraud Scheme
CHICAGO ― Three defendants who operated Washington National Trust, which was not licensed in Illinois as either a trust or a mortgage company, are facing federal fraud charges for allegedly swindling approximately $220,000 from at least 54 homeowners after falsely promising to save their homes from foreclosure and lower their monthly mortgage payments. The alleged mortgage “rescue” fraud scheme primarily preyed upon Hispanic victims in and around Aurora since late 2011.
One defendant, CARLOS RAYAS, 39, of Aurora, whose loan originator license was revoked by state regulators, was arrested today. He pleaded not guilty before U.S. Magistrate Judge Sheila Finnegan and was released on his own recognizance. A status hearing was set for Jan. 10 in U.S. District Court.
Arrest warrants were issued for MELVIN T. BELL, 37, also known as “Alex Crown,” “Minister Bey,” “Sovereign King Bey,” “King Bey,” and “S.K. Bey,” and MONICA HERNANDEZ, 43, Rayas’ cousin and a former licensed real estate broker. Both Bell and Hernandez were last known to reside in Oswego.
Bell and Hernandez were each charged with four counts of mail fraud, and Rayas was charged with two counts of mail fraud, in an indictment that was returned last week by a federal grand jury and unsealed today. The indictment also seeks forfeiture of approximately $220,000.
According to the indictment, the defendants marketed the official-sounding Washington National Trust as a business providing a financial assistance program for homeowners that was operated and controlled by wealthy Native Americans and was exempt from state and federal laws. In exchange for fees ranging between $5,000 and $10,000 per property, the defendants claimed that Washington National Trust would lower the homeowners’ existing mortgage payments by half and defeat any foreclosure. All three defendants knew, however, that Washington National Trust was not licensed to conduct loan originations and modifications in Illinois and could not lower mortgage payments or defeat foreclosure.
Bell, Hernandez, and Rayas allegedly falsely promised that Washington National Trust would pay off and acquire homeowners’ mortgages, and once that happened, the homeowners would owe only half the original mortgage to Washington National Trust, due over five years and free of any interest and property taxes. To effect this so-called “mortgage rescue,” the defendants had homeowners sign documents and deeds purportedly appointing Washington National Trust as trustee and transferring title of their homes to the business, the indictment alleges. As part of the scheme, the defendants recorded fraudulent documents and deeds in Kane, Kendall and other counties to delay foreclosure and to make it appear that their business was the homeowners’ trustee, the charges add.
The indictment also alleges that the defendants falsely promised that the fees paid by homeowners would go toward reducing their principal balance after Washington National Trust acquired the loan from the lender. Instead, Bell and Hernandez used the fees to pay for marketing and operating the business, including making payments to Rayas and others who referred homeowners to them, as well as for various personal expenses, including meals, travel, and merchandise.
All three defendants allegedly concealed from homeowners that the Kane County Circuit Court had issued orders in September and October 2012 barring Washington National Trust from further filing and recording deeds. They also allegedly concealed that the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation had issued orders in December 2012 and February 2013, first, to Washington National Trust to stop using the word “trust” and, later, to all three defendants to stop engaging in unlawful residential mortgage activity.
The charges were announced by Zachary T. Fardon, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, and Tony Gómez, Inspector-in-Charge of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service in Chicago. The Illinois State Police also participated in the investigation.
The government is being represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jessica Romero.
Each count of mail fraud carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine, or an alternative fine totaling twice the gross gain or twice the loss, whichever is greater, and restitution is mandatory. If convicted, the Court must impose a reasonable sentence under federal sentencing statutes and the advisory United States Sentencing Guidelines.
An indictment contains only charges and is not evidence of guilt. The defendants are presumed innocent and are entitled to a fair trial at which the government has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
PROOF 5: Mortgage Rescue scammers give up $400,000 in compensation for cheating borrowers
A.G. Schneiderman Reaches $400,000 Settlement With Alleged Participants In Mortgage Rescue Scam That Stole Deeds From Long Island Homeowners
Sale-Leaseback Fraud, Perpetrated At Height of Housing Crash on Long Island, Cheated 14 Families Out Of Their Homes’ Deeds and Equity
Settlements Will Return $400,000 To Families Cheated By Scam; Office of the Attorney General Also Working To Return Stolen Deeds To Homeowners
Schneiderman: This Shameful Scam Re-Victimized Families Already Suffering From The Collapse Of The Housing Market
NEW YORK – Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman today announced that he had reached settlement agreements with a disbarred attorney, an attorney, and a mortgage broker, who along with others allegedly operated a mortgage foreclosure rescue scam on Long Island that robbed 14 Long Island homeowners out of their homes’ deeds and equity. The mortgage foreclosure rescue scam involved multiple alleged partners: Empire Property Solutions and its principals, John Rutigliano and Kenneth Kiefer, located in Medford and Bethpage, NY; Zornberg & Hirsch law firm and its married principals, disbarred attorney Barry Zornberg and Nanci Hirsch, located in Hauppauge, NY; H&Z Abstract, a title company owned by Hirsch, located in Hauppauge, NY; Cory Covert, an attorney licensed to practice in New York, located in Hauppauge, NY; and mortgage broker Leonie Neufville (d/b/a Neufville Mortgage, located in Baldwin, NY).
Under the settlements, Barry Zornberg agreed to pay $340,000; Cory Covert agreed to pay $67,500.00; and Leonie Neufville agreed to pay $10,000.00 and accept a five-year ban on acting as a broker. The Attorney General has received a default judgment against Rutigliano and Kiefer, which will be converted into a money judgment. All of these funds will be used to compensate victims of the “sale-leaseback” fraud, which was perpetrated at the height of the housing crash on Long Island.
“This shameful scam re-victimized families already suffering from the collapse of the housing market,” said Attorney General Schneiderman. “My office has the resources to connect families in danger of foreclosure with qualified housing counselors and lawyers. We’ve already helped more than 50,000 families across the state, but our work will not end until we’ve guaranteed that every family in need can get the help they deserve.”
Under this mortgage rescue scam, Empire Property Solutions advertised in local papers, offering services to help families save their homes from foreclosure by refinancing their mortgages and repairing their credit scores. The company’s principals, Rutigliano and Kiefer, encouraged homeowners to turn over the titles to them through “sale-leaseback” agreements. Homeowners were told they could stay in the properties, pay rent, build up their credit, and then, after a year, that title in the home would revert back to them. But the Attorney General’s investigation found that Rutigliano and Kiefer failed to make good on their promises to use the homeowners’ payments to pay down their mortgages. In the end, the homeowners faced foreclosure and eviction.
The attorneys represented buyers, sellers, and banks at various closings of these sale-leaseback transactions, which took place at the office of Zornberg & Hirsch. But the attorneys allegedly failed to represent the interests of the homeowners, and were instead integral to inducing them to enter into the fraudulent transactions with Empire Property Solutions. As alleged, the scam also relied on the participation of a mortgage broker, Leonie Neufville, who prepared loan applications that were integral to the effort to fraudulently obtain new mortgages.
After filing a civil complaint, Attorney General Schneiderman reached multiple settlements that will return money to the victims of this fraudulent mortgage rescue scheme.
The settlement with Zornberg, Nanci Hirsch, H&Z Abstact, and Zornberg & Hirsch law firm requires Zornberg to pay a total of $340,000. The settlement with the other attorney, Cory Covert, requires him to pay $67,500. The settlement with the mortgage broker, Leonie Neufville, bars her from practicing in the real estate industry for five years and requires her to pay $10,000.
Attorney General Schneiderman has also received a default judgment against Rutigliano and Kiefer, the principals of Empire Principal Solutions. Since Rutigliano has passed away, his estate is in probate, and the Attorney General is working to convert the default judgment against Rutigliano and Kiefer into a money judgment.
The Office of the Attorney General (OAG) is working with several of the victims to return their deeds to their rightful ownership. OAG is also actively helping another family purchase a new home with the restitution they will receive from the settlements.
One of the homeowners who will get her deed back is Rosalie Thomas, a licensed nurse practitioner from Elmont, NY. After receiving a foreclosure notice in 2006, Thomas called Empire Property Solutions for help. Empire Property Solutions claimed Thomas could avoid foreclosure by signing onto their payment plan, but she still received a foreclosure notice a year later after spending tens of thousands of dollars.
“This whole ordeal has been very scary and stressful,” said Rosalie Thomas. “My youngest son was born in the house that Empire Property Solutions tried to take away from me. It’s the only home he’s ever known. I’m looking forward to finally getting the deed back and finally putting this behind me.”
Ronald Lambre and Marie DiManche, Haitian immigrants who live in Medford, NY, are working with OAG to purchase a new home with money from the settlements. After seeing an ad in the newspaper, Ms. Dimanche, a certified nursing assistant, called Empire Property Solutions and set up a payment plan that was initially half of what she and her husband were paying on their mortgage. After a year, Empire Property Solutions tripled the monthly payments and threatened to evict Lambre and DiManche if they did not pay. Their family, which includes six children, left the home and has since moved three times. OAG came across their case after opening an investigation.
“There is no way to describe how you feel when your home is stolen,” said Marie DiManche. “I’m from Haiti, and it was my dream to own a house. How do you tell your kids you can’t get back what you lost? Thanks to these settlements, my family will finally have a chance to start over again.”
The federal government also brought a criminal investigation against the partners of this sale-leaseback fraud. The United States Attorney’s Office (USAO) indicted Rutigliano and Kiefer on charges of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. USAO also indicted Zornberg for lying to federal investigators about his role in the scam.
The indictment has been dismissed against Rutigliano due to his death. Kiefer pleaded guilty and is awaiting sentencing. Zornberg pleaded guilty to perjury as part of a plea deal and has agreed to pay approximately $1.3 million in compensation to the victims of the fraud. Zornberg is awaiting final sentencing in federal criminal court.
This case is being handled by Assistant Attorney General Richard Yorke, Senior Investigator Paul Matthews, and Assistant Attorney General in Charge of the Nassau Regional Office, Valerie Singleton, under the supervision of Executive Deputy Attorney General for Regional Offices, Marty Mack. The case was previously handled by former Assistant Attorney General Victoria Safran.
In December 2014, Attorney General Schneiderman launched AGScamHelp.com, a web-based app that helps homeowners determine whether a mortgage assistance company has been vetted by a government agency.
OAG launched AGScamHelp.com in direct response to an observed increase in mortgage rescue scams in New York and across the country. According to a December 2014 report by the Center for NYC Neighborhoods and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, more than 42,000 homeowners have been conned out of $100 million nationwide.
New Yorkers have been hit particularly hard. From March 2010 to September 2014, New York homeowners submitted more than 2,700 foreclosure rescue scam complaints to the Lawyer Committee for Civil Rights, documenting at least $8.25 million in losses. Since AGScamHelp.com launched in December, more than 26,000 New Yorkers have visited the website.
AGScamHelp.com has several informational features:
Search Government-Vetted Companies: AGScamHelp.com allows consumers to search the name of an individual or company to determine if that entity is a “government-vetted” agency (that is, either a member of the Attorney General’s HOPP network or a HUD-certified counseling agency). If the company searched is not a government-vetted agency, the consumer will be told to proceed with caution and advised with several tips on how to identify signs of a foreclosure rescue scam.
Locate Nearby Counseling Partners: The web-based app also features an interactive map that allows consumers to find the nearest Homeowner Protection Program (HOPP) grantee. The Attorney General has dedicated $100 million to fund HOPP, a network of more than 85 housing counseling and legal services agencies across the state that are dedicated to providing free assistance to New Yorkers.
Report Scams: Consumers who have already been contacted by, or are in the process of working with a company suspected of operating a foreclosure rescue scam, will also have the option to file a complaint with the Attorney General’s Office. They will be directed to a separate page where they can complete a complaint form online. All complaints will be directed to the Attorney General’s Bureau of Consumer Frauds and Protection, and will be mediated by the Attorney General’s Office.
Get Tips: AGScamHelp.com offers details on how to recognize signs of a foreclosure rescue scam, including samples of scam letters and other materials utilized by fraudsters to target homeowners, and provides information about recent foreclosure scams that have been the subject of enforcement actions brought by the Attorney General’s Office and other law enforcement agencies.
Homeowners at risk of foreclosure should reach out to OAG, which can connect them with a free, qualified housing counseling agency within the Attorney General’s Homeowner Protection Program (HOPP).
The fact that the notice of rescission was “mailed” is, in and of itself, all the evidence you need, without any need for a lawyer, judge, hearing or order stating that it is effective. All of that has already been done for the borrower by the TILA rescission statute 15 USC §1635 et seq, Regulation Z, and the U.S. Supreme Court — all three branches of government being in complete and unanimous agreement on that point.
Courts that attempt to ignore this basic fact, as a matter of law, are explicitly denying the boss — the US Supreme Court.
If the borrower is alleging that the actual consummation date is unknown and might never have occurred with ANYONE in the chain relied upon by the foreclosing parties, THEN THE ISSUE OF THE DATE OF CONSUMMATION IS A FACT IN ISSUE THAT MUST GO TO TRIAL AND NOT RULED UPON BY A COURT WHO SAYS “IT IS OBVIOUS.”
In the case of table funded loans, it is nearly always the case that the actual creditor is not disclosed, so the violation of TILA is continuing and the discovery of the problem usually only is revealed in litigation.
The presence of this continuing violation is obvious — in most cases the REMIC Trust is alleged to be the holder of the note and mortgage, which by definition means that they have left something out — either (1) the name of the creditor for whom they are attempting to collect or foreclose or (2) allege (and prove) that they are the owner, which would require proof of payment in discovery and at trial.
Garfield, you obviously don’t understand the law. You keep saying the rescission is always effective when in fact the courts have ruled it is not, UNLESS a TILA breach actually occurred, the borrower sends notice of rescission timely and the creditor actually receives it, AND the borrower can tender. If the creditor believes any of these are not in order, then the creditor can refuse to tender or remove the lien. And in fact that is what happens. Borrowers can bring up tila rescission as affirmative defense in judicial foreclosure, provided they do it within a year after service of the complaint. Borrowers can sue for the breach and failure to honor the notice of rescission, provided they do it within a year after timely sending valid notice of rescission, and then the award is peanuts unless the borrower can prove actual damages. The borrower can file tila rescission counterclaim in foreclosure proceedings or declaratory judgment, but must do it timely. And courts have said they allow rescission without borrower tender ONLY when the lender deceived or cheated the borrower. Good luck proving that. Also, tila rescission does not apply to purchase money loans.
You keep bringing up the nonsense of table funded loans, The borrower estops himself from protesting about who made the loan when he signs the note that names the lender, saying “for a loan I have received.”
And you keep bringing up the REMIC trust which has NO NEXUS to the borrower except as a creditor with the right to foreclose for breach of the note or security instrument. The borrower is not a party to, beneficiary of, or injuree of the PSA or any assignment of the note, and therefore has no standing to enforce or dispute either, or any REMIC violations, in court.
Your bringing up these DEAD issues merely misleads people into thinking they have some reason to litigate, even though they are deadbeat borrowers. Why don’t you ever bring up things like appraisal fraud and mortgage fraud that give borrowers a real chance at winning money and/or loan balance reduction?
I have denigrated Neil Garfield’s legal conclusions for years, ever since I realized that foreclosure defense amounts to little more than a scam lawyers use to bilk their clients out of monthly fees for the privilege of leading them by the hand into the jaws of loss of the mortgaged property.
Most recently, since the SCOTUS Jesinoski opinion a year ago, Garfield has claimed that the creditor must sue in order to avoid serious consequences for failing to remove the lien and tender money upon receipt of a notice of rescission. Naturally, I disagreed vehemently with that nonsense, and you can read it in other posts on this blog.
Well, yesterday, Garfield finally admitted that he had not understood TILA Rescission, and that it operates the way Mortgage Examiner Storm Bradford and I said it did. That is, the borrower must tender after the creditor tenders, but the creditor will NEVER tender if he believes he did not breach TILA or the borrower did not send him timely and proper notice of rescission, or if the borrower cannot tender (which most cannot because most have underwater loans so they cannot refinance or sell the property to raise the tender money).
A court in foreclosure issue may order debt setoffs for TILA violations, even though the borrower cannot tender. I know of only one reason the court will order a rescission when the borrower cannot tender: if the lender or creditor cheated or deceived the borrower. And Garfield has not discussed that as far as I know.
Read Garfield’s explanation below, and realize that Garfield seemed to suggest to his readers that almost everyone with a home loan should try to rescind. He did that to sell his rescission packages, which I considered a big scam to bilk confused borrowers out of more money.
By the way, I don’t necessarily endorse anything in Garfield’s article below other than that he made a horrifying mistake in explaining TILA rescission to others, all while pretending to be an expert in the law.
This article corrects prior articles in which I stated that there is a one year statute of limitations on filing claims under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). After reviewing the new statutory scheme (post Dodd-Frank) it appears that the limitation language upon which I had based my prior opinions no longer exists. There still is a one year statute of limitations, but as you can see, it is now a little more complex.
There is still language to the effect that there is a one year limitation starting with the date of the occurrence of the violation. BUT then there is a provision that states the limitation is 3 years IF the violation occurs as set forth in 15 USC 1639 (disclosures in mortgage loans). But then the TILA statute (§1640) returns to the one year period, stating that as a defense, one can still bring the claim for TILA violation after one year (apparently without limitation).
Perhaps I didn’t notice before that the wording below was unruly. But upon my review now, it seems to me that to be on the safe side, one should bring an action to enforce a rescission notice, within one year of sending the notice, although the more accurate way to interpret this would be one year after the “violation occurred” which is the day after the party fails to comply with the TILA rescission duties. This would be approximately 1 year plus 25 days from the date that the TILA rescission notice was mailed.
The counterpart for this lies in 15 USC 1635 wherein those duties under TILA statutory rescission are set forth. It appears to me that the alleged creditor also has no right to bring an action to collect what is left of the debt after the expiration of one year. I reach this conclusion because the right of the creditor to claim any money from the borrower is entirely dependent upon FIRST fulfilling ALL of the duties under the statute — return canceled note, release encumbrance and pay borrower all money paid by borrower and paid to third parties as compensation arising out the origination of the loan. Those duties are conditions precedent to making a claim for anything against the “borrower.”
THIS MAKES TOTAL SENSE ONCE YOU THINK ABOUT IT. If the creditor has been unable or unwilling to comply with the TILA Rescission Statute, and has elected NOT to file a lawsuit within the twenty day period to challenge the rescission and demand that it be vacated, then it follows that the rescission was completely justified, to wit: all the disclosure violations that the TILA Rescission Statute was meant to punish banks for violating are and must be deemed true. Since the banks violated statute, public policy and probably some criminal laws, they should get the punishment that Congress decided was appropriate.
Starting with the date that the “creditor” started violating the TILA Rescission statutory duties, at the end of one year, it would appear that the entire transaction is dead. The loan contract, note and mortgage are rendered void at the time the notice of rescission is dropped in the mailbox (USPS). That happens by operation of law regardless of what anyone does.
The debt lives on but it is cut down to the principal since no finance charges or fees can be claimed by the alleged creditor. But, if at the end of one year, the “borrower” has not brought an action to enforce the rescission, it would seem that the borrower is at least subject to a defense that he/she is time-barred from bringing the enforcement action after one year. After 3 years, that is certainly true — as long as we are talking about the date of the violation.
The date of the violation is the 21st day after receiptof the notice of rescission. Thus the action to enforce the rescission matures on the date of violation of TILA. That is the date when the time expires for compliance (20 days after receipt of the notice of rescission) — unless the alleged creditor has, in accordance with the statute filed an action to change the “order” of things as they are set forth in the TILA rescission statute. With mailing times that might be as late as 25 days+ from the date the notice of rescission was sent. That doesn’t change when the rescission became effective (i.e. canceling the loan contract, voiding the note and voiding the mortgage); that date cannot be changed except by legislation, to wit: it is the date of mailing the rescission notice.
So I conclude that after one year starting with the 21st day after the notice of rescission was received, the borrower can no longer enforce the rescission duties. But before everyone gets wild about this, the rescission is still effective by operation of law, which is to say the note and mortgage are void. When such a homeowner files to quiet title he/she can appropriately assert that the mortgage is void by operation of law and should be removed from the public records. In my opinion it is only when the lien is void (not voidable or unenforceable) that it is appropriate for a court to quiet title to the petitioner.
At that point, the alleged creditor, if there is one, has no defense to quieting title, as I see it. And the creditor is barred from asserting any claim against the “borrower” because of the express wording of the TILA rescission statute 15 USC 1635, which says that no such claim can be made without complying with the three TILA Rescission duties under the statute.
Being in violation of those duties after 21 days from receipt, the creditor can make no claim for the underlying debt which has been trimmed by statute to only the principal AFTER releasing the lien, returning the canceled note and paying the borrower all the money set forth in the statute which is to say every penny ever paid by the borrower and every penny paid as compensation for the origination of the loan.
So the situation reaches a sort of equilibrium, to wit: the “borrower” can no longer make a claim for money to be paid under the third duty set forth in TILA rescission statute and the “creditor” can no longer make a claim for any part of the debt. The borrower is left to clear title on his/her own. (That is why I strongly recommend recording the rescission notice, since it would, by operation of law, effectively release the lien by self-help).
The creditor who failed to comply with the statute or contest the rescission loses everything, but is no longer liable for damages due to non compliance with the three duties under the TILA rescission statute — unless the “creditor” continued to wrongfully pursue foreclosure without complying with the TILA rescission statute. Thus the borrower cannot bring a claim against anyone to enforce the duties under the TILA Rescission statute, but the decision to ignore the notice of rescission is then met with a wrongful foreclosure action, since the rescission was effective by operation of law on the day it was mailed.
THIS IS WHY IT SO IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SUIT ENFORCING THE RESCISSION AND A SUIT FOR DAMAGES FOR WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE OR SUING TO QUIET TITLE BASED UPON THE EXISTENCE OF THE RESCISSION. ANY OTHER INTERPRETATION WOULD BE REWRITING THE TILA RESCISSION STATUTE. Such “interpretations” would render the text of the statute and the text of the SCOTUS opinion in Jesinoski as meaningless — because such an “interpretation” would again require a judicial act before the rescission could be effective at law. That outcome has specifically been eviscerated by all three branches of government plus the Federal Reserve.
AND this is a good time to remind the attorneys reading this that attorneys fees are recoverable as damages under the Wrongful Act Doctrine (see the Florida Bar Journal last month). So in the wrongful foreclosure claim which I assume exists in virtually every case where the notice of rescission was sent, foreclosure defense attorneys can turn the filings of opposing counsel on their head — using their rendition of billable hours as a guide to the claim for being required to defend an action that should never have been filed for foreclosure.
15 USC 1640(e) Jurisdiction of courts; limitations on actions; State attorney general enforcement. Except as provided in the subsequent sentence, any action under this section may be brought in any United States district court, or in any other court of competent jurisdiction, within one year from the date of the occurrence of the violation [e.s.] or, in the case of a violation involving a private education loan (as that term is defined in section 1650(a) of this title), 1 year from the date on which the first regular payment of principal is due under the loan. Any action under this section with respect to any violation of section 1639, 1639b, or 1639c of this title may be brought in any United States district court, or in any other court of competent jurisdiction, before the end of the 3-year period beginning on the date of the occurrence of the violation.[Editor’s note: This would appear to extend the statute of limitations regarding rescission enforcement to three years, but §1635 is not specifically mentioned].This subsection does not bar a person from asserting a violation of this subchapter in an action to collect the debt which was brought more than one year from the date of the occurrence of the violation as a matter of defense by recoupment or set-off in such action, except as otherwise provided by State law. [e.s.] An action to enforce a violation of section 1639, 1639b, 1639c, 1639d, 1639e, 1639f, 1639g, or 1639h of this title may also be brought by the appropriate State attorney general in any appropriate United States district court, or any other court of competent jurisdiction, not later than 3 years after the date on which the violation occurs.
Middletons sued creditors for TILA rescission of a purchase money loan. They had given notice of rescission 4 days before the statue of repose tolled, and sued 6 days after it tolled. They did not tender, but the court acknowledged that it had the authority under TILA to require tender in order to unwind the loan.
The court opined that TILA rescission applies only to loans for property that does not become the security for purchasing it. The court denied restitution, fees, and costs to the borrower, and granted the creditors’ motion to dismiss. The court affirmed its decision when the borrower moved to reconsider.
These borrowers must have clung onto Neil Garfield’s malarkey suggesting that every home loan borrower send a notice of rescission and enforce it through a lawsuit. The Middletons wasted a bunch of money filing this ridiculously frivolous lawsuit, and they should sue the attorney who advised them to do it.
Another Garfield Clingon bites the dust.
To make matters worse, the foolish family never bothered hiring a competent professional to examine her loan-related documents. Had they done that, they probably would have learned of numerous legitimate causes of action against those who injured them, such as appraisal fraud and mortgage fraud, for which they might have won huge punitive damages.
If you find yourself in a situation like the Middletons’, contact me for more info on a path to salvation. 727 669 5511.