SUPREME COURT CASE NO.
COURT OF APPEAL CASE NO. D066636
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF CALIFORNIA
LAURA SATERBAK,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
After a Published Opinion by the Court of Appeal
Fourth Appellate District, Division One
Case No. D066636
PETITION FOR REVIEW
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
GLOSSARY OF TERMS 6
ISSUE PRESENTED 7
WHY REVIEW SHOULD BE GRANTED 7
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 9
A. The First Amended Complaint and the demurrer. 9
B. The Court of Appeal decisions 12
C. This petition for review is timely 14
ARGUMENT 14
A. This Court should grant review to establish a
uniform set of rules to govern both preforeclosure
and postforeclosure cases. 14
B. Review should be granted to resolve the conflict
between Gomes v. Countrywide and Saterbak. 17
C. Review is necessary because the court of appeal
opinion is inconsistent with Yvanova’s ruling that a
void assignment can never have any legal effect. 19
D. Contrary to what the court of appeal believed, this
Court did not decide that its Yvanova holdings could
never apply to a preforeclosure lawsuit. 21
E. California public policy, as expressed in the
foreclosure statutes, allows a pre-foreclosure lawsuit. 22
CONCLUSION 25
CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT 26
PROOF OF SERVICE 27
[…]
Second, as this Court held in Yvanova, 62 Cal.4th at 929, a
void assignment is void from the beginning. It does not change
from voidable to void merely because a foreclosure sale occurs.
The Saterbak opinion, if it stands, will create confusion because,
in effect, it permits a void assignment to authorize a foreclosure
when this Court held that a void contract had no legal effect at
all. Yvanova, 62 Cal.4th at 929.
…
