Via: b.daviesmd6605

Does a lender’s failure to explore options to prevent foreclosure in clear violation of Civil Code section 2923.5 affect title to foreclosed property when the property is purchased — not by a bona fide purchaser for value — but by the very lender who violated the statute?

NATURE OF THE CASE AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This case arises under the recently enacted Civil Code section 2923.5 which requires residential mortgage lenders to explore alternatives to foreclosure with borrowers before initiating non-judicial foreclosure proceedings
The is a Plaintiff Petition for review of cc 2923.5 regarding reversal of all violations of the act. The decision in the Appeal Court IV. Division 3 has shown no tender, no preemption etc. This goes for all people regardless if they have been foreclosed. If foreclosed with sale asking Court to review reversal for all.

Scribd

Related posts:

1. MASSIVE RULING TO PROTECT CALIFORNIA HOMEOWNERS FROM NON JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE: MABRY v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY CODE 2923.5 From: b.daviesmd6605 PUBLISHED OPINION AT THE APPEALS LEVEL FOR CC 2923.5....
2. MAJOR WIN FOR HOMEOWNERS IN NJ SUPREME COURT; SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-2634-08T2 We hold that a series of standardized agreements to cure...
3. IN RE CERTIFICATION OF NEED FOR ADDITIONAL JUDGES, Fla: Supreme Court 2010 No. SC10-320. Supreme Court of Florida. February 25, 2010. QUINCE,...
4. CALIFORNIA Decisions Against MERS, NOT A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, NOT A FOREIGN BANK MAKING MORTGAGES! From B.DaviesMd6605 MERS IS LOOSING BIG TIME. THEY ARE A...
5. This case might have put MERS in the SPOT LIGHT: MATTER OF MERSCORP, INC. v. Romaine, 295 AD 2d 431 – NY: Supreme Court, Appellate Div., 2nd Dept. 2002 295 A.D.2d 431 (2002) 743 N.Y.S.2d 562 In the Matter...