TFH 9/24 | Foreclosure Workshop #45: Park v. Wells Fargo, N.A. -- Rethinking the California Court-Generated "Void Versus Voidable" Distinction

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

TFH 9/24 | Foreclosure Workshop #45: Park v. Wells Fargo, N.A. — Rethinking the California Court-Generated “Void Versus Voidable” Distinction

TFH 9/24 | Foreclosure Workshop #45: Park v. Wells Fargo, N.A. — Rethinking the California Court-Generated “Void Versus Voidable” Distinction

COMING TO YOU LIVE DIRECTLY FROM THE DUBIN LAW OFFICES AT HARBOR COURT, DOWNTOWN HONOLULU, HAWAII

LISTEN TO KHVH-AM (830 ON THE AM RADIO DIAL)

ALSO AVAILABLE ON KHVH-AM ON THE iHEART APP ON THE INTERNET

.

.

Sunday – September 24

 ———————
Foreclosure Workshop #45: Park v. Wells Fargo, N.A. — Rethinking the California Court-Generated “Void Versus Voidable” Distinction

 

Since the Glaski and later Yvanova California decisions, the distinction between void versus voidable has been the predominant judicial method throughout the United States of analyzing borrower challenges to the standing of foreclosing entities.

That distinction, for example, has been used successfully to prevent borrowers from challenging irregularities in loan documentation processing in securitized trusts, such as a trust’s alleged acquisition of mortgages through assignments after trust closing dates, similar to the earlier denial of third party beneficiary status to borrowers.

Yet, that distinction has proven largely irrelevant, for the larger issue is not whether the rules of the securitized trust have been violated and thus improperly sought to be enforced by borrowers rather than the trust beneficiaries no matter what the trust laws of Delaware or New York are, but whether the foreclosing plaintiff actually possesses the borrower’s mortgage loan.

A case in point is Park v. Wells Fargo, N.A., a California unpublished intermediate appellate decision, the subject of this Sunday’s Workshop, which illustrates why the Void vs. Voidable distinction needs to be discarded in favor of the Standing-at-Inception Rule.

Borrowers in foreclosure are advised not to use the void versus voidable defense, just another Rule Ritual trap.

On today’s show, time permitting, we will also discuss new, alarming information surfacing regarding where AG Settlement monies earmarked to punish lenders and compensate homeowners have actually gone.

On a previous show we discussed the evidence that investors have secured in litigation how the foreclosure profits of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are being used to prop up Obamacare.

Today we will reveal additionally how the Obama Justice Department has transferred monies earmarked to compensate defrauded, foreclosed homeowners instead to Democratic Party political action groups.

.
Host: Gary Dubin Co-Host: John Waihee

.

CALL IN AT (808) 521-8383 OR TOLL FREE (888) 565-8383

Have your questions answered on the air.

Submit questions to info@foreclosurehour.com

The Foreclosure Hour is a public service of the Dubin Law Offices

Past Broadcasts

EVERY SUNDAY
3:00 PM HAWAII
6:00 PM PACIFIC
9:00 PM EASTERN
ON KHVH-AM
(830 ON THE DIAL)
AND ON
iHEART RADIO

The Foreclosure Hour 12

 

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



Comments

comments

This post was written by:

- who has written 8710 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

Leave a Reply

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

Archives