9th Circuit Uses Yvanova Reversing Trial Court

It seems obvious that if a complete stranger to the transaction (see the wording from the San Francisco study), is attempting to enforce a debt or seek a foreclosure, they should have no rights at all. And if a party accepts a modification application, they are making several representations about their authority and what they will do with the application. But the courts have resisted all such notions until very recently.

THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.

—————-

see 9th Circuit Quotes Yvanova13-17297

This is the stuff that  makes lay people crazy.

Plaintiff Newman filed a lawsuit in California to stop a foreclosure claiming BONY didn’t have the right to foreclose. The trial court dismissed his case because he supposedly didn’t have standing to raise that issue. Then he filed an appeal. During his appeal, the Yvanova decision was released.

So the 9th Federal Circuit applied Yvanova to the pending appeal and reversed the trial court, adding that there could be an action, as Newman had brought, to hold parties responsible for handling of a modification request. That should be a no-brainer but the courts keep getting twisted up in the idea that the banks need to be protected when it is the homeowners who need protection.

Of course for good measure the decision is announced as not to be used for precedent — but it is difficult to see how it could not be precedent.

The bottom line, I think, is that the Courts are very reluctantly coming around to the view that they will allow those actions or defenses that they must allow while they allow wide latitude to pretender lenders. It’s another step toward equality under the law but we are a still quite some distance to a level playing field.

It seems obvious that if a complete stranger to the transaction (see the wording from the San Francisco study), is attempting to enforce a debt or seek a foreclosure, they should have no rights at all. And if a party accepts a modification application, they are making several representations about their authority and what they will do with the application. But the courts have resisted all such notions until very recently.

The trend over the last decade is giving rise to a new fraudulent industry. Posing as the creditor and even suing upon the debt is cloaked in presumptions that the fabricated documents are true, putting the burden on the average citizen to disprove a nonexistent fact. And accepting a modification application as part of a larger scheme to force the homeowner into foreclosure was and might still be OK, because servicers supposedly are under no duty to do anything — not withstanding Dodd Frank and other statutes and regulations.

Schedule A Consult Now! or call 202-838-6345

11 Responses

  1. Because Fannie Mae created MERS, cracking those trust wide open will lead to the one of the greatest schemes that involved all pretending Financial institutions throughout the world. Fannie holds the key to Pandora’s Box.

  2. @ScottThompson – Loans that go through the FDIC due to lender insolvency are ‘washed clean’ of all defects if transfer is by effect of law. Not sure if that holds true if transfer is by purchase agreement as in the case of WAMU.

  3. Heyhey everybody – does anybody around here know how to search FDIC for a mortgage/loan number?

    As I understand it, many may have been discharged in various mergers et cetera and I am wondering how to verify this.

    Thank you and Make it a Great Day.

    Scott Thompson
    http://www.columbiamortgageplus.com

  4. Along the lines of Kalicki v JP Morgan (Cal App). Trial judge and appellate court found JPM forged document, had it recorded, and presented it to the court as a fraud, and the judge caught it. The homeowner found money for good attorney, and JPM appealed the award of $400k+ attorney fees to the homeowner. Case is unpublished because the illegal acts found in the rulings can be used to make a case for RICO. One misdeed can be forgiven as a ‘mistake’, but multiple occurrences of illegal acts prove a pattern of criminal activity.

    Misrepresenting an authority a party does not possess is mostly a civil matter, unless documents are forged or recorded to support that misrepresentation. Those acts are felonies in California. Therefore those cases won’t be published unless the lender wins. Judges are now faced with an ever-expanding mountain of rulings based on more bad law on top of flawed law, and correcting the tens of thousands of erroneous decisions would cost the courts dearly if the judiciary was properly held accountable. To make matters worse, the settlements prevent the states from collecting the cost of rectifying the errant courts unless they returned the settlement money. IOW, TBTF and we are SOL.

    I am not an attorney, so the preceding missive is likely malarkey. Or maybe not. Either way, attorneys are willing to take your money without any guarantees (for good reason).

  5. @ The A Man

    **Raising a beer and cheering you for sharing SCIARRATTA v. U.S. BANK.

  6. @ David Newman

    Case No. 1:12-cv-01629
    Eastern District Court in Fresno, Honorable Judge Anthony W. Ishii

    If you would please share the details for the purpose of learning and study.

    Do you have a complaint that can be shared?

  7. We can assist you with your wrongful foreclosure cases and help you with the Yvanova interpretations….call us at Consumer Rights Defenders at 818.453.3585, today.

  8. Hello everyone, I am David Newman.
    This is my case, and I will tell you it has been a long and hard road.I agree with Stan Burman , California Freelance Paralegal. My case should be published.Please spread the word to see if there is enough interest to get it published.There is much more to my case than what is on Livinglies. God bless Neil, a tireless defender.

  9. Ask yourself how a complete stranger to a transaction that never occurred can foreclose on your home.

  10. Reblogged this on California Freelance Paralegal and commented:
    That is good that the Ninth Circuit cites the Yvanova case but they should have published this case so that it can be more easily cited as precedent in other cases.

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: