California case law - favorable rulings

[isisis]

Here's a beginning, not as well organized as I'd hoped. Lot's of overlapping, many of these cases fall into various categories. As you can see most of these are within the last year or so which means we're making progress. No guarantee the citation format is correct.

Backdated documents:
Ohlendorf v Am. Home Mortg. 2010 U.S. Dist LEXIS 31098 (E.D. Cal. March 2010) Backdated NOD may be tainted.
Castillo v. Skoba, Vice President of Aurora Loan Services, LLC 2010 WL
Makreas v. First Nat. Bank of Northern California, 856 F. Supp. 2d 1097 (N.D. Cal. 2012). Backdated assignment, survives MTD for wrongful foreclosure, UCL and quiet title. Sale not voidable but void, no tender requirement.

Substitution of Trustee
Dimrock v. Emerald Properties, 81 Cal. App. 4[SUP]th[/SUP] (Cal. App. 4[SUP]th[/SUP] dist. 2000)
Pro Value Properties v Quality Loan Services Corp., 170 Cal. App. 579, 581 (Cal. App. 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Dist. 2009)

Robo signing case law
Michel v. Duetsche Bank (E.D. Cal. 20
Tang v. Bank of America N.A., 2012 U. S. Dist. Lexis 38642 (C. D. Cal. March 2012)
Armeni v. America’s Wholesale Lender N.A., (SACV 11 – 1317 DOC (SHx) (2011)

Assignment case law:
Tamburri v. SunTrust Mortg., 2011 WL 6294472 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2011)
Sacchi v. MERS, 2011 WL 2533029 (C.D. Cal. June 2011)
Barrioneuvo v. Chase Bank, N.A., 2012 WL 3235953 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2012)
Mena v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, 2012 WL 3987475 (N.D. Cal Sept. 2012)
Schafer v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 2011 WL 2437267 (C.D. Cal. 2011)
Vogan v. Wells Fargo, N.A., WL 5826016 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 2011)
Wise v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (E.D. Cal. 2012)
Johnson v. HSBC BANK USA, No. 3: 11-cv-2091-JM-WVG (S.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2012). All claims survive, FDCPA, negligence, RESPA, UCL
Naranjo v. SBMC Mortgage et al 11-cv-2229-L (WVG) (2012).

Breach of contract
Harvey v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 12-3238 SC (N.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2013).
BAROCIO v. Bank of America, N.A., No. C 11-5636 SBA (N.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2012).

UCL, slander of title
Albano v. CAL-WESTERN RECONVEYANCE CORPORATION, Dist. Court, (N.D. Cal. 2013)
Brown v. Bank of America, N.A. CV12-0309 2012. Negligence, UCL, prommisory estopple, RFDCPA all survive.

 

[isisis]

Next installment. Once again lacking the organization I would have liked. Note: These and the previous postings are not chronological and this isn't by any means comprehensive, it's just what I've been able to come across.

Wrongful foreclosure
Glaski v. Bank of America, 218 Cal. App. 4th 1079, 160 Cal. Rptr. 3d 449 (Ct. App. 2013).
Wrongful foreclosure, quiet title
Landmark case, great ruling from the appellate court but unfortunately being viewed as a minority point of view by many other courts for instance the next case which cited Glaski. Wrongful foreclosure survived instead because sale of the DOT (after origination to a securitized trust) precluded the bank from retaining any beneficial interest.
SUBRAMANI v. WELLS FARGO BANK NA, No. C 13-1605 SC (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2014).
Wrongful foreclosure, cancelation of documents, unjust enrichment, UCL
Chavez v. Indymac Mortgage Services, 219 Cal. App. 4th 1052, 162 Cal. Rptr. 3d 382 (Ct. App. 2013).
Engler v. RECONTRUST COMPANY, No. CV12-1165 CBM (SPx) (C.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2013).

HAMP or Cal. Civ. Code 2923.5 -6 related

Mabry v. Superior Court, 185 Cal. App. 4th 208, 110 Cal. Rptr. 3d 201 (Ct. App. 2010).
Lona v. Citibank N.A.. (2011) 202 Cal. App. 4th
Boschma v. Home Loan Center Inc. (2011) 198 Cal. App. 4th
Sutcliff v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., N.D. Cal. (2012)
Intengan v. BAC Home Loans Servicing LP, 214 Cal. App. 4th 1047, 154 Cal. Rptr. 3d 727 (Ct. App. 2013).
Vasquez v. Bank of America, NA, No. 13-cv-02902-JST (N.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2013). Breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing

Cancelation of Instrument

Suarez v. Bank of New York Mellon 2013
UCL
Schshosinsky v. Compass Bank 2013

Negligence, UCL

Becker v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 2012
Negligence, promisory estoppel, UCL

REN v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, No. 13-0272 SC (N.D. Cal. June 7, 2013).
Promissory Estoppel, UCL

Martin v. LITTON LOAN SERVICING LP, No. 2: 12-cv-00970-MCE-EFB PS (E.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2013).
IIED, quiet title

Fraud
Ellis v. JP MORGAN CHASE & CO., No. 12-cv-03897-YGR (N.D. Cal. June 13, 2013).
Fraud, UCL, unjust enrichment

 

[gb_mh]

Here's some rulings relating to California HOAs (Homeowner Associations). DO NOT LET HOA'S and their agents, debt collector, lawyers, etc. extort you!

Davis-Stirling Act: Homeowners’ Association (HOA) Must Accept Partial Payments on Delinquent Assessments

Huntington Cont’l Town House Ass’n, Inc. v. JM Tr., __ Cal. Rptr. 3d __, 2014 WL 173800 (Jan. 13, 2014): The Davis-Stirling Act governs HOA-initiated judicial foreclosures on assessment liens. Here, the homeowners tendered a payment to their HOA, during foreclosure litigation, that more than covered their delinquent assessments but was less than the “total†amount owed, which included the assessments, late fees, interest, and attorney’s fees. The HOA refused to accept this “partial payment†and the trial court allowed foreclosure. The appellate division found, however, that the plain language of the Act “allows for partial payments and delineates to what debts, and in which order, payments are to be applied.†See CC Section 1367.4(b). The HOA should have accepted the payment, which would have brought homeowners current and tolled the 12-month clock that allows HOAs to proceed with foreclosures. The first appellate division panel accordingly reversed and remanded to the trial court, also ruling that homeowner’s appeal of the HOA’s damage award was moot. The HOA admitted it had failed to apply part of homeowner’s assessment payment but, in recalculating damages, the trial court allowed the HOA to calculate interest based on the original, incorrect amount. In this second, published, version of the case, the same appellate division panel restated its first opinion as a published opinion with modifications and reversed and remanded (again), instructing the trial court to correct the damage calculations. Huntington Cont’l Town House Assn. v. JM Trust, 2014 Cal.App. LEXIS 41 (Orange County Superior Court Appellate Division) (Jan. 13, 2014) (published)



CC Sections 1367.1 & 1367.4: HOA Pre-foreclosure Notice Requirements

Diamond v. Superior Court, 217 Cal. App. 4th 1172, 2013 WL 3551736 (June 18, 2013): The Davis-Sterling Act governs HOA-initiated judicial foreclosures on assessment liens. Here, the borrower alleged that their HOA had not strictly complied with the relevant notice requirements. See CC Section 1367.1(d) (HOA must send the borrower a copy of the notice of delinquent assessment, by certified mail, within 10 days of recording the notice); CC Section 1367.4(c)(2) (the HOA board must record their vote to foreclose in the next meeting’s minutes); CC Section 1367.1(a)(6) (borrower must be notified of their right to demand pre-foreclosure ADR); CC Section 1367.4(c)(3) (borrower must be notified of the board’s vote before the HOA takes any foreclosure actions). The Court of Appeal found that all four statutes require strict compliance and ordered summary judgment for the borrower.

 

[isisis]

Challenging an assignment has become increasingly well, challenging in California courts. It's become an controversial enough to have opinions published and then unpublished (Ivanova, Keshtar) and now the issue is being put before the Supreme Court. As we wait with baited breath for the results here are some citations supporting the borrower's rights.

“A party claiming rights as an assignee of a mortgage note bears the burden of proving it received a valid assignment by “clear and positive evidence” and that courts are prohibited from presuming such assignments are valid.”
“A lender who fails to prove it received a valid assignment of the mortgage note has no “standing to complain” about not receiving the proceeds of a note or a sale of property securing it”. Cockerell v. Title & Ins. Co. (1954) 42 Cal. 284, 292, 293

“The rule that only the debt owner has the power to foreclose is not diminished by California’s statutory scheme permitting a deed of trust model as opposed to a traditional mortgage. Under the deed of trust model the debt owner retrains the power to foreclose as the deed of trust’s beneficiary. Vournas v. Fidelity Nat. Tit. Ins. (1999) 73 Cal. App. 4th 668

“Unless the foreclosure is initiated by the actual beneficiary it is void. “ Glaski v. Bank of America, 218 Cal.App. 4th at 1094

Gomes, often used the other way round actually ruled a plaintiff can attack the authority of a party to conduct a foreclosure if the complaint “identified a specific factual basis for alleging the foreclosure was not initiated by the correct party." Gomes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 192 Cal.App. 4th 1149 (2011).

“Where it would be unjust… to retain a benefit gained through unenforceable documents, quasi contract is a fitting relief”. Complaint alleges that the documents used to execute this non-judicial foreclosure were faulty because never possessed title and documents are void. It would be unjust to retain money procured through fraudulent or unenforceable documents. Cheung v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 987 F Supp. 2d 972 (N.D. Cal.2013)

"Plaintiffs are permitted to allege and do allege that no valid contract exists between them." Allowing a claim for quasi contract, Vargas v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. (S.D. Cal. 2012)