Links

Links
CA Court Site Info on Foreclosure

Thursday, May 19, 2016

NEW CALIFORNIA PUBLISHED "YVANOVA TYPE" CASE IN OWNER'S FAVOR !!!

Just a matter of time before the floodgates start more of the same!!

Void is void, but voidable is not necessarily void, right???






COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                   DIVISION ONE
                        STATE OF CALIFORNIA

D069439
================================================

MONICA SCIARRATTA

V

US BANK NATIONAL ASSN

SUPERIOR CT NO. RIC1301485  Riverside County
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

This time Chase Bank was involved and also WAMU  (in 2005)...
Essentially WAMU subbed Quality Loan Services as successor
trustee then JPM  in 2009 assigned the deed to Deutsche Bank.

As can be seen, this is very similar to the case we mentioned on Chase
Bank for which we have personal knowledge which took 3.5yr and the
shenanigans that Bryan Cave law firm pulled. We were not surprised
because we have seen the same crap all over the state.

"On Dec 28 2009, Chase, as successor in interest to WAMU, recorded
a document entitle "Assignment of Deed of Trust" which states-
"This assignment is being recorded to correct the assignee reflected
on the assignment recorded April 27 2009 as Instrument # XYZ...the
undersigned hereby grants, assigns, and transfers to B of A..all beneficial
interest under that certain DOT dated 6/17/2005 executed by Sciarratta.."

In part, the complaint was first filed in District Ct, but was dismissed in
defendant's favor; Sciarratta then filed a state court action for wrongful
foreclosure, quiet title, and cancellation of instruments. Defendants asserted
res judicata, and failure to assert prejudice.

Plaintiff asserted that prejudice is not an element of wrongful foreclosure
where the foreclosure sale is void; court allowed Plaintiff to amend on
grounds that she must allege element of prejudice. The court eventually
found that under Yvanova, Plaintiff was victim of a void deed of trust by
B of A so she had standing to assert the claim.

Essentially, the court reiterated, the harm (foreclosure) can be directly
traced to the [foreclosing entity's] exercise of the authority purportedly
delegated by the assignment; that policy reason favor this approach and that
a contrary rule would lead to a legally untenable situation --that anyone can
foreclose on a homeowner because someone has the right to foreclose.

"AND SINCE LENDERS CAN AVOID THE COURT SYSTEM ENTIRELY
THROUGH NONJUDICIAL FORECLOSURES, THERE WOULD BE
NO COURT OVERSIGHT WHATSOEVER." (Miles, 236 Cal.App.4th at p.410.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of such transactions appear in similar wording across CA esp in
view of Yvanova... we have Mr. Antonini to thank for handling that case
in such a great fashion!!


It has taken this many years to bring the cases forward, and even
despite CA HBOR-- many attorneys simply can't take these cases without
upfront money for fees.  It's very sad because in many of the cases with
WAMU, none of the deeds exist, meaning, the assignments were no good
despite what they claim. They trashed everything so that it would be very
difficult to figure out what happened.  Cat's been outta the bag for years--
and now we have at least a START on some justice!!

http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2016/d069439.html

No comments:

Post a Comment