Glaski v. Bank of America, N.A. | Updated Docket . . . Note: Attempt to DEPUBLISH case.

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

Glaski v. Bank of America, N.A. | Updated Docket . . . Note: Attempt to DEPUBLISH case.

Glaski v. Bank of America, N.A. | Updated Docket . . . Note: Attempt to DEPUBLISH case.

Glaski v. Bank of America, N.A.
Case Number F064556
___________________
07/31/2013 Opinion filed.     (Signed Unpublished) The judgment of dismissal is reversed. The trial court is directed to vacate its order sustaining the general demurrer and to enter a new order overruling that demurrer as to the third, fourth, fifth, eighth, and ninth causes of action. Glaski’s request for judicial notice filed on September 25, 2012, is denied. Glaski shall recover his costs on appeal; Franson, Wiseman, Kane; 29 pages.
opinion ordered published on 8/8/13
08/05/2013 Filed request to publish opinion.     Atty Antognini obo applt Glaski (JAA)
08/05/2013 Filed request to publish opinion.     atty Didak (JAA)
08/08/2013 Order granting publication filed.     As the nonpublished opinion filed on July 31, 2013, in the above entitled matter hereby meets the standards for publication specified in the California Rules of Court, rule 8.1105(c), it is ordered that the opinion be certified for publication in the Official Reports. (JAA)
08/08/2013 Received:     request for publication submitted by atty Freshman, however pos does not include all parties ; moot since publication granted
08/08/2013 Received:     request for publication submitted by atty Perry, however pos does not include all parties; moot since publication granted
08/09/2013 Received:     Request for Publication by Robert H. Rhoades. Publication granted 8/8/13.
08/09/2013 Received:     Request for Publication by Rumio Sato. Publication granted 8/8/13.
08/09/2013 Received:     Request for Publication by James Macklin. Publication granted 8/8/13.
08/09/2013 Received:     Rquest for Publication by Rick Ensminger. Publication granted 8/8/13.
08/09/2013 Received:     Request for Publication by Attorney Allen J. Cory. Publication granted 8/8/13.
08/09/2013 Received:     Request for Publication by Charles W. Cox. Publication granted 8/8/13.
08/13/2013 Received:     Request for Publication by Elaine Williams, Publication granted 8/8/13.
08/13/2013 Received:     Request for Publication by Erlinda Aniel, Publication granted 8/8/13.
08/13/2013 Received:     Request for Publication by Brenda Reed, Publication granted 8/8/13.
08/13/2013 Received:     Request for Publication by Toni Schultheis, Publication granted 8/8/13.
08/13/2013 Received:     Request for Publication by Thomas Schultheis, Publication granted 8/8/13.
08/13/2013 Received:     Request for Publication by Susan Augustitus, Publication granted 8/8/13.
08/13/2013 Received:     Request for Publication by Daniela Romero, Publication granted 8/8/13.
08/13/2013 Received:     Request for Publication by David Lilly, publication granted 8/8/13.
08/13/2013 Received:     Request for Publication by Debbie Thompson, publication granted 8/8/13.
08/13/2013 Received:     Request for Publication by Jeanine Newman-Reynolds, publication granted 8/8/13.
08/13/2013 Received:     Request for Publication by Keith Schwartz, publication granted 8/8/13.
08/13/2013 Received:     Request for Publication by Fareed Sepehry-Fard, publication granted 8/8/13.
08/15/2013 Received:     Request for Publication by Matthew Pitagora, publication granted 8/8/13.
08/16/2013 Received:     Request for Publication by Rick and Linda Jones, publication granted 8/8/13.
08/16/2013 Received:     Request for Publication by Douglas Hackett, publication granted 8/8/13.
08/21/2013 Request filed to:     for certified copy of order for publication by Atty Bruce Guttman (certified copy mailed this date).
08/22/2013 Request filed to:     for copy of opinion & order granting request for publication by Rob Rhoades (copies mailed this date).
08/22/2013 Received copy of     ex-parte application of Leah Litman to Appear Pro Hac Vice by atty Glavinovich (JAA)
08/22/2013 Received copy of     ex-parte application of Alan E. Schoenfeld to Appear Pro Hac Vice by atty Glavinovich (JAA)
08/22/2013 Received copy of     ex-parte application of Noah Levine to Appear Pro Hac Vice by atty Glavinovich (JAA)
08/23/2013 Received document entitled:     “Petition for Rehearing” as to the order of 8/8/13 granting publication; filed by Atty Glavinovich obo Respondents Bank of America, N.A. (JAA) Note: The Document was received and not filed due to original signature needed.
08/23/2013 Received:     Request for publication by Paul Papas- request is moot, publication previously granted 8/8/13 copy of order sent today)
08/23/2013 pro hac vice application     atty Theodore E. Bacon for respondents Bank of America National Association: applicationa for attys Noah Levine; Leah Litman; Alan E. Schoenfeld to appear pro hac vice. (to JAA)
08/26/2013 Rehearing petition filed.     atty Glavinovich obo applt (JAA)
08/26/2013 Filed document entitled:     original certificate of word count for petition for rehearing (JAA)
08/27/2013 pro hac vice granted     The ex parte applications of Leah Litman, Noah Levine and Alan E. Schoenfeld to appear pro hac vice, filed by respondents on August 23, 2013, are hereby granted. (JAA)
08/29/2013 Order denying rehearing petition filed.     JAA
10/04/2013 Filed letter from:     Legal Aid Services of Oklahoma, Inc., req CD copy of oral argument (check #2156 enc.)
10/07/2013 Received copy of Supreme Court filing.     Ex Parte application of Noah Levine to appear Pro Hac Vice (JAA)
10/07/2013 Received copy of     letter to Supreme Court dated 10/4/13 from atty Glavinovich obo JPMorgan Chase requesting to depublish opinion (JAA)
10/08/2013 Remittitur issued.
10/08/2013 Case complete.  

 

10/08/2013 Case complete.
10/08/2013 Received copy of     letter to Supreme Court dated 10/7/13 from atty Garbutt obo Deutsche Bank National Trust Company requesting to depublish opinion (JAA)
10/11/2013 Received copy of     letter to Supreme Court dated 10/10/13 from atty Little obo California Bankers Association and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A requesting to depublish opinion (JAA)

remittitur

n. 1) a judge’s order reducing a judgment awarded by a jury when the award exceeds the amount asked for by the plaintiff (person who brought the suit). 2) an appeal’s transmittal of a case back to the trial court so that the case can be retried, or an order entered consistent with the appeals court’s decision (such as dismissing the plaintiff’s case or awarding costs to the winning party on appeal).
See also: remand

 

Down Load PDF of This Case

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Comments

comments

This post was written by:

- who has written 8643 posts on FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA.

CONTROL FRAUD | ‘If you don’t look; you don’t find, Wherever you look; you will find’ -William Black

Contact the author

7 Responses to “Glaski v. Bank of America, N.A. | Updated Docket . . . Note: Attempt to DEPUBLISH case.”

  1. Sarah says:

    Wow, looks like Banksters want this one censored.

  2. Joeseph Hill says:

    YES Sarah Because cus they need to hide all their dirty dealings

  3. jonny says:

    Seems the scumbag laywers are starting to get a little scared the jig is up and that everyone will know just how preverse they are defending all the lies that they have perpetrated onn Americans…

  4. Mike says:

    I wanna see the letter from Chase’s Glavinovich…

  5. dinsfla says:

    It’s at the bottom of the post where it says pdf. Click that image.

  6. Bob Hurt says:

    Even assuming, as Glaski insisted, that New York law governs interpretation of the PSA, which it did not because the PSA was under Delaware law, and further assuming that the transfer of Glaskis’ loan to the Trust violated the terms of the PSA, that after-the-deadline transactions would merely be voidable at the election of one or more of the parties—not void as Glaski and the illiterates would have everyone believe. Consequently, Glaski, was not a party to the PSA, and did not have standing to challenge it.

    This concurs with time-honored principles of contract law. A void contract is “invalid or unlawful from its inception” and therefore cannot be enforced. 17A C.J.S. Contracts § 169. Thus, a mortgagor who was not a party to an assignment between mortgagees may nevertheless challenge the enforcement of a void assignment. A voidable contract, on the other hand, “is one where one or more of the parties have the power, by the manifestation of an election to do so, to avoid the legal relations created by the contract.” Id. Therefore, only one who was a party to a voidable contract has standing to challenge it.

    It is true that New York Estate Powers & Trusts Law § 7-2.4 states: “every act in contravention of the Trust is void.” New York case law, however, makes clear “that section 7-2.4 is not applied literally in New York.”Bank of Am. Nat’l Ass’n v. Bassman FBT, LLC, 366 Ill. Dec. 936, 981 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). Instead, New York courts have held that a beneficiary can ratify a trustee’s ultra vires act. See, e.g., Mooney v. Madden, 597 N.Y.S.2d 775 (N.Y. App. 1993) (holding that trustee may bind trust to an otherwise invalid act or agreement that is outside scope of trustee’s power when beneficiary or beneficiaries consent or ratify trustee’s ultra vires act or agreement); Matter of Estate of Janes, 630 N.Y.S.2d 472, 477 (Sur. 1995), aff’d as modified sub nom. Matter of Janes, 643 N.Y.S.2d 972 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996), aff’d sub nom. Matter of Estate of Janes, 90 N.Y.2d 41 (N.Y. 1997)(acknowledging that a beneficiary may ratify a trustee’s ultra vires act if “the ratification was done with knowledge of material facts”); Leasing Serv. Corp. v. Vita Italian Restaurant, 566 N.Y.S.2d 796, 797-98 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991) (“It is hornbook law that a contract entered into by . . . an unauthorized agent, corporate officer, trustee or other person purporting to act in a representative capacity . . . is voidable.”); Hine v. Huntington, 103 N.Y.S. 535, 540 (1907) (“We have before this called attention to the fact that the cestui que trust is at perfect liberty to elect to approve an unauthorized investment and enjoy its profits, or to reject it at his option.”); 106 N.Y. Jur. 2d Trusts § 431 (“[T]rustee may bind trust to an otherwise invalid act or agreement which is outside the scope of the trustee’s power when beneficiary consents to or ratifies the trustee’s ultra vires act or agreement.”);see also In re Levy, 893 N.Y.S.2d 142, 144 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010) (explaining that “[t]he essence of ratification ‘is that the beneficiary unequivocally declares that he does not regard the act in question as a breach of trust but rather elects to treat it as a lawful transaction under the trust’”) (quoting Bogert, Law of Trusts and Trustees § 942).

    If an act may be ratified, it is voidable rather than void. See Hacket v. Hackett, 950 N.Y.S.2d 608, 2012 WL 669525, at *20 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 21, 2012) (“A void contract cannot be ratified; it binds no one and is a nullity.

    However, an agreement that is merely voidable by one party leaves both parties at liberty to ratify the transaction and insist upon its performance.”) (quoting 27 Williston on Contracts § 70:13 [4th ed.]) (internal quotation marks omitted); 17 C.J.S. Contracts § 4 (noting that “a void contract . . . is no contract whatsoever” and “cannot be validated by ratification”) (emphasis added); id. (“A contract that is merely voidable is capable of being confirmed or ratified by the party having the right to avoid it . . . .”).

    These cases above make it obvious that, under New York law, a trustee’s unauthorized transactions may be ratified; such transactions, voidable—not void.

    That being the case, if the trustee of the securitized trust can’t, on its own, decide to accept these late-delivered notes, then it’s clear the beneficiaries can. They can ratify or waive anything they want. Common sense dictates that they can either, accept the notes/mortgages even though they were delivered late, giving the trust power to enforce, but theoretically putting the trust’s tax-exempt REMIC status at risk; or not allowing the trustee to accept the notes/mortgages, keeping their REMIC status alive, but denying themselves the income from the notes/mortgages they bought.

    Common sense would also dictate that if there are enormous numbers of late-delivered notes/mortgages, does anyone really believe that the holders of these notes/mortgages would rather lose the tax benefits by virtue of it becoming a taxable event, which is highly unlikely because the IRS has failed to take any action so far, or lose the income from the notes/mortgages.

    ———–

    Feel free to hammer me with your rebuttals.

  7. Bob Hurt says:

    The link source for my foregoing comments

    http://fe.gd/LNV

    ———–

    Feel free to hammer me with your rebuttals.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks


Leave a Reply

GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com

Archives