H/T Abby
In The Supreme Court Of California
TSVETANA YVANOVA,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE
CORPORATION, OCWEN LOAN
SERVICING, LLC, WESTERN
PROGRESSIVE, LLC, and DEUTSCHE
BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY,
et al,
Defendant-Respondent.
EXCERPT-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION …………………………………. 1
STATEMENT OF INTEREST …………………………………. 2
ARGUMENT …………………………………. 3
I. CALIFORNIA HAS A STRONG PUBLIC POLICY
IN FAVOR OF PROTECTING HOMEOWNERS
FROM WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE …………………………. 3
A. California’s Foreclosure Statutes Strike a
Careful Balance Between Efficiency in
Foreclosure and Homeowner Protection ……………….. 4
B. The Recent Enactment of the HBOR Reflects a
Legislative Intent to Protect Homeowners
Against Abusive Practices, Including
Foreclosures by the Wrong Party ………………………….. 5
II. A HOMEOWNER MAY BRING A CAUSE OF
ACTION FOR WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE ON
THE BASIS THAT THE ASSIGNMENT OF DEBT
IS INVALID ……………………………………………………………….. 7
A. The Foreclosing Party’s Lack of Authority Is a
Proper Basis on which the Homeowner May
Challenge a Foreclosure ………………………………………. 7
B. Because a Void Assignment Deprives a
Foreclosing Party of the Authority to Foreclose,
a Homeowner May Bring a Wrongful
Foreclosure Action on That Basis ……………………….. 10
C. A Homeowner Is Harmed When an Entity
Without The Authority To Do So Forecloses on
Her Home ………………………………………………………… 14
D. Permitting Wrongful Foreclosure Actions to
Challenge Invalid Assignments is Sound Policy …… 17
CONCLUSION ……………………………………………………………………………… 19
[…]
Thank you Abby for the heads up! Now we need to pray the court agrees that the law matters more than the “too big to fail” banks and their high paid attorney/lobbyists.
Very strong argument in favor of public policy favoring standing! SC should reverse.
Google Mark Didak Amicus Brief Yvanova for another great brief filed in support of the Appellant. Well done!
I know this is good news, but my gut feeling will that (and unfortunately) the court may not reverse.
The only reason is that there are at least to other cases that the California Supreme Court has denied review to with the same late pooling and servicing agreement transfer.
The obvious question is why would they deny the two latest challenges if they were going to reverse this one?
With the exception of showing bias as stated in Silaga (where the original lender would not have foreclosed, I just don’t see it.
I hope I wrong, but if someone can answer the above question, I don’t think that I am.