California Supreme Court Rules in Yvanova, “The borrower owes money NOT TO THE WORLD at large but to a particular person or institution.”

Yvanova v New Century Mortgage 02182016 Supreme Court of California opinion

By William Hudson

Last week the California Supreme Court ruled in Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corporation (Case No. S218973, Cal. Sup. Ct. February 18, 2016) that homeowners have standing to challenge a note assignment in an action for wrongful foreclosure on the grounds that the assignment is void. Obviously if the court had ruled differently, the banks would have had absolute carte blanche to forge mortgage assignments with wild abandon. In fact, without a system of endorsements and assignments it would be almost impossible to determine what party has a legitimate interest in a property and chaos would have ensued (sound familiar?).

 
The Yvanova ruling puts to rest the prior assumption by most California courts that a homeowner lacks standing to challenge a void assignment. This decision has the potential to open the litigation floodgates by borrowers who were improperly foreclosed on due to fraudulent or improper assignments. In fact, you can bet that homeowners who lost their homes due to the court’s resistance to follow established law will be filing suit.

 
In Yvanova, she complained that the bank had resorted to the use of fraudulent documents in order to foreclose. First she identified that a bankrupt entity called New Century assigned a deed of trust years after the company ceased to exist. The mortgage assignments demonstrated that even though New Century was dissolved in 2008, New Century allegedly assigned Yvanova’s deed of trust to Deutsche bank in 2011. It was also discovered that Yvanova’s note could not have been delivered to the Morgan Stanley trust pool because the trust had a cutoff date of January 2007. Deutsche Bank, the servicer, claims to have transferred the deed of trust to that pool in December 2011. Thus, 3 years and 11 months after the trust had closed.

 
By law, and to ensure tax-free pass-through status by the REMIC (Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit) notes placed in trusts must be placed into the pool by a certain date. The Morgan Stanley trust had a cutoff date of January 2007 but Deutsche Bank claims the note they received by a zombie assignment was placed in the pool in 2011. Thus, a nonexistent company called New Century transferred a note to a closed trust.

 
Up until Yvanova was settled, the California courts rejected hundreds of similar claims over the years stating that borrowers were not a party to or holder of the debt (see Jenkins f. JP Morgan Chase). The California courts essentially ruled that homeowners may now challenge wrongful foreclosures on the grounds that the assignment of the note was invalid or the chain of assignment was faulty. In securitized trusts, it is fairly common for the endorsements and assignments to be either inaccurate or downright fraudulent (photoshopped, robosigned, etc.). The big securitizing banks like Ocwen, Deutsche, Morgan Stanley and Wells Fargo better prepare for a tsunami of wrongful foreclosure suits in California.

 
The California Supreme Court, by ruling in favor of Yvanova, effectively confirmed the 2013 California Appellate ruling Glaski v. Bank of America, which held that a homeowner facing a non-judicial foreclosure has standing to challenge violations of the pooling and servicing agreement. One of the most insightful quotes in Yvanova states, “The borrower owes money not to the world at large but to a particular person or institution, and only the person or institution entitled to payment may enforce the debt by foreclosing on the security.”

 

The California Supreme Court got it right when they elaborated that, “A homeowner who has been foreclosed on by one with no right to do so has suffered an injurious invasion of his or her legal rights at the foreclosing entity’s hands. No more is required for standing to sue.” Could it be that the California courts are tired of the 9 years of fraudulent banking games that have clogged the court system with no end in sight?

 
It wasn’t the homeowner who got sloppy, greedy and decided to start forging and photoshopping legal documents. It was the banks that engineered this complete fiasco from the top to bottom. Maybe now the banks will clean up their act, or they will be forced to find a more efficient and convincing way to forge and falsify endorsements and assignments. To date, the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing- and the banks only hope that the homeowner doesn’t discover their deception.

 
I will reiterate again, if a bank claims to own a debt then why not simply show the documentation and prove it? This entire mess could be cleaned up very quickly if the banks would simply show the court evidence of ownership- but the courts know the banks don’t have it. By now we know that this entire debacle was engineered under the premise of plausible deniability and the screws are coming loose.
It is evident that the courts have had enough. The Supreme Court in Yvanova stated that:

 

“… California borrowers whose loans are secured by a deed of trust with a power of sale may suffer foreclosure without judicial process and thus ―would be deprived of a means to assert [their] legal protections if not permitted to challenge the foreclosing entity‘s authority through an action for wrongful foreclosure. (Culhane, supra, 708 F.3d at p. 290.)

A borrower therefore ―has standing to challenge the assignment of a mortgage on her home to the extent that such a challenge is necessary to contest a foreclosing entity‘s status qua mortgagee‖ (id. at p. 291)— that is, as the current holder of the beneficial interest under the deed of trust.”
The decision goes on to state that:

 

“In seeking a finding that an assignment agreement was void, therefore, a plaintiff in Yvanova‘s position is not asserting the interests of parties to the assignment; she is asserting her own interest in limiting foreclosure on her property to those with legal authority to order a foreclosure sale. This, then, is not a situation in which standing to sue is lacking because its ―sole object . . . is to settle rights of third persons who are not parties. (Golden Gate Bridge etc. Dist. v. Felt (1931) 214 Cal. 308, 316.)”

Apparently the California Supreme Court just grew a pair and the remaining 49 states might want to listen up. With all of the fraud settlements that have occurred over the past seven years, it is evident that what is occurring isn’t simply sloppy paperwork or unintentional oversight but blatant fraud, theft and criminal conspiracy if you want to be honest. It is a sad day in America when a homeowner must go all the way to the Supreme Court in order to obtain a fair and just ruling. If the courts had ruled in favor of the banks (and I am sure the judges in Yvanova knew what was on the line), there is no doubt in my mind that banks would have had a foreclosure feeding frenzy.

The court states the obvious, that there is an investor or entity who may suffer an unauthorized loss of its interest in the note if the foreclosure proceeds, “when an invalid transfer of a note and deed of trust leads to foreclosure by an unauthorized party, the ―victim‖ is not the borrower, whose obligations under the note are unaffected by the transfer, but ―an individual or entity that believes it has a present beneficial interest in the promissory note and may suffer the unauthorized loss of its interest in the note.”

And finally, the court gets to the meat of the matter- the issue of standing. “As it relates to standing, we disagree with defendants’ analysis of prejudice from an illegal foreclosure. A foreclosed-upon borrower clearly meets the general standard for standing to sue by showing an invasion of his or her legally protected interests (Angelucci v. Century Supper Club (2007) 41 Cal.4th 160, 175)—the borrower has lost ownership to the home in an allegedly illegal trustee‘s sale. (See Culhane, supra, 708 F.3d at p. 289 [foreclosed-upon borrower has sufficient personal stake in action against foreclosing entity to meet federal standing requirement].)  Moreover, the bank or other entity that ordered the foreclosure would not have done so absent the allegedly void assignment. Thus- [t]he identified harm—the foreclosure—can be traced directly to [the foreclosing entity‘s] exercise of the authority purportedly delegated by the assignment.”

In conclusion, the court clarifies who is allowed to enforce the note without showing overt favoritism to the bank. Please note the eloquence of the last line in this paragraph in the Yvanova decision:

“Nor is it correct that the borrower has no cognizable interest in the identity of the party enforcing his or her debt. Though the borrower is not entitled to object to an assignment of the promissory note, he or she is obligated to pay the debt, or suffer loss of the security, only to a person or entity that has actually been assigned the debt. (See Cockerell v. Title Ins. & Trust Co., supra, 42 Cal.2d at p. 292 [party claiming under an assignment must prove fact of assignment].) The borrower owes money not to the world at large but to a particular person or institution, and only the person or institution entitled to payment may enforce the debt by foreclosing on the security.

Again, “The borrower owes money NOT TO THE WORLD at large but to a particular person or institution, and ONLY the person or institution entitled to payment may enforce the debt by foreclosing on the security.” The court isn’t magically creating case law- this is exactly what the promissory note entitles the bearer to do- collect on a debt. The note does not say, “If you have a forged document you randomly printed a copy off the internet or photoshopped- you have standing.”

Only the individual or entity with actual STANDING can foreclose on a home. The fact that the homeowner defaulted on an alleged contract (that probably didn’t happen the way the contract reflects the transaction) doesn’t mean any party claiming to be a note holder can foreclose on the home. Like Jerry McGuire said, “SHOW ME THE MONEY.” Until the mortgagee shows up with actual evidence of ownership- no servicer, “lender” or unknown party should be able to randomly foreclose on a home simply by saying they own the note.

Again, this is the beauty of rescission. By precluding the servicer from walking into court with a forged note, mortgage and alleged contract- and forcing this party to demonstrate contractual standing- many fraudulent foreclosures would be prevented. It is tragic that so many people have lost their homes because the courts permitted a pretend lender with no standing to waltz in and take a home simply by showing fraudulent documents and making false claims.

Finally, the Yvanova ruling leaves us with the crowning glory of this decision, “A homeowner who has been foreclosed on by one with no right to do so has suffered an injurious invasion of his or her legal rights at the foreclosing entity‘s hands. No more is required for standing to sue.” Thank you California Supreme Court justices for ruling according to law instead of the banking lobby.

15 Responses

  1. Thanks to all for the good comments…..I sent Yvanova to the Supreme Court of Virginia as a supplemental authority as my Petition for Rehearing is still pending……

  2. Here’s what I posted on FB as my commentary to the article:

    Well, it’s about damn time!

    Here’s an excerpt:

    “The California courts essentially ruled that homeowners may now challenge wrongful foreclosures on the grounds that the assignment of the note was invalid or the chain of assignment was faulty.”

    Because California is a nonjudicial foreclosure state, there is no way for a homeowner to challenge a foreclosure because no court order is necessary to foreclose. This means that a homeowner has no legal recourse whatsoever until the eviction stage, but then it’s too late because it’s impossible to prevail. Why? Because in a nonjudicial foreclosure state, there is a legal presumption that all foreclosure documents have been filed correctly and in good order.

    Really? Really?

    I sure hope this case holds up and isn’t overturned because now everyone knows that foreclosure documents were NOT filed correctly (if at all) and were NOT in good order. In fact, they were fraudulent.

    Here’s what a nonjudicial foreclosure feels like:

    It feels like being tied to a railroad track with a freight train coming right at you, cutting and shredding you into pieces, and dragging you under its wheels for miles and miles and miles. But you don’t die, not yet. You silent screams just go on and on and on . . . until it’s finally over. And then . . . nothing.

  3. Massachusetts’
    Non-Judicial Foreclosure Process What does it mean to be a non-judicial foreclosure state? It means that borrowers do not get a day in court in front of a judge before they are foreclosed upon. It means that Massachusetts built its legal process on a strict honor code. Since foreclosing entities are not required to go in front of a judge, our law literally expects them to behave even more scrupulously and honestly than if we did require foreclosures to be reviewed by a judge1 well that doesn’t happen.
    so TILA does the same for borrowers, as the banks get in a Non-Judicial Foreclosure Process,
    the STATUE IS NOT AMBIGUOUS. IT SAYS WHAT IT MEANS. and the supreme court put there
    stamp on it. all a homeowner has to do is send a letter. The statute explains, in terms the Court regarded as “unequivocal,” how “the right to rescind is to be exercised: It provides that a borrower ‘shall have the right to rescind, by notifying the creditor, in accordance with regulations of the Board, of his intention to do so.’” Because that language “leaves no doubt that rescission is effected” by the borrower’s notice, The Court responded: “Nothing in our jurisprudence, and no tool of statutory interpretation, requires that a congressional Act must be construed as implementing the closest common-law analogue.”
    Section 1635(a) nowhere suggests a distinction between disputed and undisputed rescissions, much less that a lawsuit would be required for the latter.
    when i sent out ( letter/notice ) to banks,and all others of rescission. that was and has the same affect as the banks sending a notice to foreclose. and the only way a homeowner can
    stop that notice to foreclose is a order from a court, and how we do that , is we have to file
    in court to stop it/ argue against it, and challenge it, and dispute the notice /letter/ and ask the judge to vacate the FORECLOSURE SALE.
    NOW REVERSE THAT.
    that is why there is that 20 day period, for them to , DISPUTE THE RESCISSION, BY FILING IN COURT, just as we have to file and ask judge to vacate the foreclosure action, to dispute there action on trying to foreclose on us. it is the same. but in reverse. by operation of law, AND ONLY A JUDGES ORDERS CAN VACATE THAT ACTION., the mortgage and note, are void, cancelled, as of the date it was mailed. that is why they hate it. and they know, the only
    person that can come into court to get that vacated, is the TRUE CREDITOR. THE ONE THAT GAVE MONEY.
    Section 1635(a) nowhere suggests a distinction between disputed and undisputed rescissions, much less that a lawsuit would be required for the latter.
    SO JUST AS IN US DISPUTING THERE FACTS TO FORECLOSE ON ME. AND HAVE SO MANY DAYS TO DO THAT IN, OUR I WOULD LOSE MY HOUSE, THEY HAVE TO DO THE SAME TO SAVE THERE FACTS. LET ASK YOU PETER.
    WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO ME, IF I DIDNT GO TO COURT AND ASK JUDGE TO VACATE THE FORECLOSURE SALE? HOW MANY DAYS DO I HAVE TO GET THAT DONE?
    AND AFTER THEY FORECLOSE ON ME, AND MAYBE 3 MONTHS OR SO GO’S BY, AND I GO INTO COURT AND ASK THE JUDGE TO VACATE THE FORECLOSURE SALE. AND THE BANK SAYS , WAIT YOUR HONOR, THEY HAD TIME TO DISPUTE AND GET A COURT ORDER TO STOP FORECLOSURE SALE, AND THEY DIDNT DO THAT IN THE REQUIRED TIME. TELL ME WHAT THE JUDGE WOULD SAY TO ME. ? BECAUSE WHAT THE JUDGE WOULD SAY THERE IS THE ONLY THING HE CAN SAY TO THEM NOW THAT THEY HAVE NOT COMPLYED TO THE STATUES. AND THE BIG THING IS THAT THEY DO NOT
    HAVE AVAILBLE , TO SAY WE HAVE THE NOTE AND MORTGAGE. OBJECTION YOUR HONOR, THEY HOLD NOTHING, THE NOTE AND MORTGAGE WAS VOIDED AND CANCELLED AS OF MAILING, AND IF THEY WANTED TO DISPUTE THE NOTICE OF RESCISSION, THEY HAD 20 DAYS TO DO THAT, AND THEY DIDNT.

    so point is . 1/ i sent out rescission notice/ letter on this date.
    2/ bank received / got/sign for letter/notice on this date.
    3/ 2ND Demand letter went out on this date.
    4/ bank received/got/sign for 2nd Demand notice.

    Like Neil Garfield said in his radio cast last night when we enforce them violating 15 U.S.C 1635;

    Wherefore please enter an order that commands them to return the cancelled note, file the release of void of encumbrance and;

    William a Marshall Sr, estate of William a Marshall Sr, and David a Belanger ,poa, of Joanna Belanger
    and poa of estate of William a Marshall Sr, and William a Marshall Sr.
    Plaintiff
    V.
    Deutsche Bank National Trust Company third party intervenor
    Counter Party JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A, third party intervenor
    John Doe 1 to infinity intervenors
    Defendants

    Now Come, David a Belanger ,poa, of Joanna Belanger
    and poa of estate of William a Marshall Sr, and William a Marshall Sr. , the Plaintiffs and as their attorney on their behalf and respectfully move this honorable court to enter Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce three statutory jurisdiction duties under 15 U.S.C 15-1635 to enforce and cure the banks violation of their duties.
    It is clear neither the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, decision nor the statue itself is open to any interpretation at all. The lower Courts, the federal Courts, the United State Congress or the Executive Branches of Government, have all collectively and unanimously stated the contract, if it ever existed, the Note and the Mortgage are void by operation of law.

    1. The Plaintiffs’ rescission was mailed, April 13, 2015.

    2. More than twenty days have expired since the mailing of the rescission notice

    3. the Defendants, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. receives the rescission notice and have done nothing in response and therefore they are in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1635.( have not filed anything in court, to dispute the rescission, in the required 20 days, time to dispute the rescission , or ask a court to vacate the rescission FOR THE NOW, VOIDED MORTGAGE AND NOTE, THAT BECAME VOIDED BY OPERATION OF LAW, AS OF THE MAILING OF THE NOTICE TO RECIND,
    THAT THEY RECEIVED ON, THIS DAY BY CERTIFIED MAIL,

    4/ A 2ND DEMAND LETTER, WAS SENT ON THIS DATE. ASKING THEM AGAIN TO COMPLY TO THE LAW. AS OF
    THIS DATE, THEY HAVE NOT AGAIN COMPLY TO LAW. STATUE,

    Wherefore please enter an order that commands the Defendants and any of their subsidiaries or related trust or corporate entities, agents, employees, successors and assigns to return the Plaintiffs’ cancelled note, prepare and file the release of the now void Plaintiffs’ mortgage encumbrance of record and;

    a. Return all the money that the Plaintiffs have paid against the account of their Note and Mortgage.

    b. Pay Plaintiffs all the monies paid to any third parties as compensation arising out of and/or related to the origination of this consumer mortgage loan transaction.

    c. Permanently enjoin the applicable specific parties, that are not public entities like the court, from attempting to use the Plaintiffs’VOIDED AND CANCELLED Note and Mortgage for the enforcement of foreclosure or any collection or enforcement of this purported debt.
    .
    d. To expunging all Registry of Deeds records of the Defendants , the now void plaintiffs mortgage, foreclosure affidavits , assignments, etc, etc,

    i would also ask for attorney fees, etc.etc

    Attorney’s fees — Prevailing party — Mutuality of obligation — Mortgage foreclosure — A defendant was entitled to recover attorney’s fees as a prevailing party under section 57.105(7), where mortgage entitled mortgagee to reasonable attorney’s fees for enforcement, after court granted motion to dismiss mortgage foreclosure and dismissed the case without prejudice — Pleading requirement — It was proper for defendant to seek attorney’s fees in a motion filed after entry of dismissal without prejudice where she had not yet filed a responsive pleading — Plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal makes a defendant a prevailing party even where plaintiff refiles the case and prevail.

    Respectfully submitted

  4. Fred Schneider, on February 25, 2016 at 2:20 pm said:
    I have been fighting nasty old Bank of America for over forty eight (48) months

    give me a email , djabelanger@hotmail.com

  5. Kalifornia, thanks, but if I give in to your demand, uh….condition…..are you prepared to be responsible for breaking the internet?

    That picture you request will surely do that. Y2K had nothing over the ramifications of that picture bending the web into pretzel-like contortions.

    Although I have to admit that we do have some nice floral print bikinis and given enough rum, Taco the dog is pretty ravishing in one in particular. Better left to the maniacal imagination.

  6. @ E. ToLLe

    On the updates to the pending cases in the Cal Supreme Court, it is a conditional “yes” — the condition being that photo you’ve promised us of you in the pink floral bikini on the beach with the pooch at your side.

  7. Louise said, “Now, how many people lost their homes or are in the process of losing their homes due to lack of standing, which compared to the heavy-duty issues like fraud, fraud on the court and forged documents, is rather meager.”

    Louise, I’m not sure if you’ve read the Yvanova decision, but while it does grant standing as its central core, that standing is granted in the Yvanova case due to a bullshit assignment, as in….the homeowner can call foul (standing), the result being a void assignment (not until now), which nukes the whole bank deal, and therefore the lying thieving bastard’s are up a creek with a leaking canoe. So, it’s actually a really big deal and for a lot of folks, myself included, it’s an even bigger deal than Jesinoski. Many of us started this battle long, long ago, in a galaxy far far away, and never filed rescission and are time barred, save for the lack of consummation argument in court, which may be a tough row to hoe at this juncture. That time has not come….yet.

    Now the running around the desk with a party hat and a bottle of Jack Daniels cannot begin until the rest of the nation’s courts decide that their backs are up against the wall and they’d best follow suit. How long can X amount of courts rule for the borrowers, while Y continue to give homes to greedy bankers, without lamp posts being strung with ½” thick neckties?

    Any court that continues down the path of handing homes to banks just because that’s the way they’ve always done business, will eventually find their courts clogged to the gills with wrongful foreclosure suits, and rightfully so. Let them work overtime undoing all of the wrong that they’ve put into place. I, along with several million former homeowners, now tent dwellers, have zero pity for them. Let them eat cake. Stale cake.

    @Kalifornia, I hope you’ll keep us posted on those cases waiting in the wings that you mentioned. The left coast isn’t on my radar, and I appreciate any updates.

  8. @ elequisitor (Phred Maldonado?) <<<< ATTRIBUTION

    The Cal Civil Code you've been urging for years now appears very relevant, though it may require a slant toward a negative averment that the entity can not prove its interests for the record:

    1203. Any person interested under an instrument entitled to be proved for record, may institute an action in the superior court against the proper parties to obtain a judgment proving such instrument.

  9. Now, how many people lost their homes or are in the process of losing their homes due to lack of standing, which compared to the heavy-duty issues like fraud, fraud on the court and forged documents, is rather meager. Heads need to roll so that justice is available for all Americans. Waiting for the ax to fall.

  10. I have been fighting nasty old Bank of America for over forty eight (48) months now and will likely lose a property on March 22n here in Colorado. Colorado is terrible when it comes to helping and defending the rights of homeowners in Colorado.

    It is too bad that states don’t follow the more recent Montana Supreme Court Ruling and the subsequent filing of an Amicus Brief by the Montana AG in the “Morrow V. Bank of America” Case. Justice Laurie McKinnon got it right when she sited “negligent misrepresentation against B of A. I say Hooray for the State of Montana.

    In my humble opinion there should be a national moratorium on all foreclosures across the nation and a common federal law requiring lenders to provided undisputed proof of transfer, assignment, and more importantly “proper endorsement” of the note. Thousands are signed in blank by known “robo signors” and B of A, MERS, FNMA, and others are all a part of this huge scam.

    Just read the case on the National Mortgage Settlement back in 2012 and the supposed epic settlement between the USDOJ and Bank of America (nearly $17 BILLION was supposed to be set aside to help property owners) All this money and a supposed $45 Billion in our taxpayer money to help troubled property owners- where is the money and the help$$

    Now Bank of America is offering 3% down mortgages and many courts like Colorado allow lenders to continue to foreclose on helpless people who do not have the financial means nor even understand how big banks have taken unfair advantage of them.

    Don’t count on the CFPB (totally useless and dysfunctional), the USDOJ, or any other government agency or member of Congress to stand up and help property owners. Really a sad thing that brought our wonderful country down with these too big to fail institutions.

    I wish I knew the answers, but it seems to me that the more people we have fighting the better and certainly giving a second thought to doing business with these people. And lastly for anyone who defends Bank of America, just look to the facts: 1)thousands of complaints filed state and nationwide against B of A and others, 2)thousands (more likely hundreds of thousands) of lawsuits filed against these big bad lenders, over $100 BILLION DOLLARS assessed against B of A alone in fines, settlements with state DOJs and the USDOJ, and private, confidential settlements like in the Morrow Case. I say great job California and Montana and hope all this rubs off on state and federal government to do something that should have been done a long time ago- just my humble opinion.

  11. FYI:

    There are an additional SEVEN foreclosure-related cases in the lineup before the Cal Supreme Court wherein the briefing was deferred until the opinion on Yvanova was issued. Consequently, there will be an eventual stream of rulings extending beyond the issues in Yvanonva.

    Keshtgar v. U.S. Bank, N.A., S220012. (B246193; 226 Cal.App.4th 1201, mod. 227 Cal.App.4th 321c; San Luis Obispo County Superior Court; CV120282.)

    Mendoza v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., S220675. (C071882; 228 Cal.App.4th 1020; San Joaquin County Superior Court; 39201100267960CUORSTK.)

    Boyce v. T.D. Service Co., S226267. (B255958; 235 Cal.App.4th 429; Santa Barbara County Superior Court; 1438504.)

    Castro v. Indymac Indx Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-AR21, S227876. (E061030, E061704; nonpublished opinion; Riverside County Superior Court;INC1302920.)

    Flannigan v. Onuldo, S229113. (D067447; nonpublished opinion; Riverside County Superior Court; RIC1304784.)

    Gehron v. Nicholas, S231459. (E061855; nonpublished opinion; Riverside County Superior Court; INC1302638.)

    Gehron v. Bank of America N.T., S231447. (E060701; nonpublished opinion; Riverside County Superior Court; INC1302638.)

  12. A succinct article on Yvanonva:

    California Supreme Court Reverses Yvanova – Banks Cannot Act as Bounty Hunters!

    In what can only be determined as a decidedly, albeit professional, thump on the heads of California State and Federal Judges (trial and appellate), along with the banks, the California Supreme Court reminded all citizens, including the legal and banking communities, that the law is the law. In Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage, who is the debt owner is not a matter of controversy – either you own it or you don’t; either you can prove you own it or you can’t. (Yvanova, p.8) What you CANNOT do is foreclose on a borrower’s property if you cannot prove you own it; and a homeowner can challenge the foreclosing party’s claim to own it.

    http://infotofightforeclosure.com/california-supreme-court-reverses-yvanova-banks-cannot-act-as-bounty-hunters/

  13. Absolutely 100% correct. But how do we make it become a reality for ALL those harmed ????

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: