Learn More About Senate Bill 1150 to Help Surviving Homeowners in California — SB 1150: Survivor Bill of Rights

Senate Bill 1150 would provide surviving homeowners (widows, widowers, other heirs) with the same protections that other homeowners have from needless foreclosures.

via Learn More About Senate Bill 1150 to Help Surviving Homeowners in California — SB 1150: Survivor Bill of Rights

If Cal-Western Reconveyance LLC is closed up, then who’s doing Wells Fargo’s foreclosures?

Interesting blog post detailing how Cal-Western Reconveyance, LLC has now closed its location in El Cajon, California about 4 months ago and the building is now boarded up and fenced with barbed wire.That is interesting news as Cal-Western worked very closely with Wells Fargo on non-judicial foreclosures.

 

If Cal-Western Reconveyance LLC is closed up, then who’s doing Wells Fargo’s foreclosures?.

California Court of Appeal ruling on the Homeowner’s Bill of Rights

A recent California Court of Appeal ruling on the Homeowner’s Bill of Rights is the topic of this blog post.

On June 12, 2015, in the case of Monterrosa v. Superior Court the California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District issued a published decision in which they stated that a borrower who obtains a preliminary injunction enjoining a trustee sale using Civil Code section 2924.12 contained in the Homeowner’s Bill of Rights is a “prevailing borrower” under the statute and is entitled to attorney fees. The Court specifically found that a borrower only has to obtain a preliminary injunction to be entitled to attorney fees they are not required to obtain a permanent injunction.

This case is another huge win for California homeowners facing foreclosure in that once the case becomes final within 30 days it may be cited in a memorandum of points and authorities. The case will become final on July 12, 2015 unless the respondents in this case, namely PNC Bank, et al, file a petition for rehearing with the Court of Appeal, request that the case be depublished or file a petition for review with the California Supreme Court.

The petitioners in that case were Michael Monterrosa and Cheranne Nobis who filed an filed an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and request for issuance of an order to show cause regarding a preliminary injunction, seeking to prevent the trustee’s sale of their residence, then scheduled for April 21, 2014. The superior court issued an order on May 8, 2014, granting petitioners’ motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining the trustee’s sale of petitioners’ home, with conditions. The petitioners then filed a motion for attorney fees and costs. After a hearing, the superior court denied the motion, reasoning the language of the applicable statute was consistent with the award of attorney fees at the conclusion of the action; statutory attorney fees were awardable only at the end of the case; and the statute did not specifically provide for an interim award of attorney fees upon the granting of provisional relief such as a preliminary injunction.

The petitioners then filed a petition for writ of mandate seeking an order to direct the superior court to grant their motion for attorney fees and costs. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded the superior court erred in concluding that petitioners were not prevailing borrowers because they obtained only a preliminary rather than permanent injunction, stating that “[A] borrower who obtains a preliminary injunction enjoining, pursuant to section 2924.12, the trustee’s sale of his or her home is a ‘prevailing borrower’ within the meaning of the statute.” The case was remanded for consideration on the merits, and costs were awarded to the petitioners for the writ proceeding.

To view the slip opinion of this case on Justia visit:

View case on Justia

To view the slip opinion of this case on Google Scholar visit:

View case on Google Scholar

 

To view over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation created by the author of this blog post visit:

http://www.scribd.com/LegalDocsPro

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal that has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation.

*Do you want to use this article on your website, blog or e-zine? You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: “Stan Burman is the author of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation and is the author of a free weekly legal newsletter. You can receive 10 free gifts just for subscribing. Just visit http://www.legaldocspro.net/newsletter.htm for more information.

Follow the author on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/LegalDocsPro

You can view sample legal document packages for sale by visiting http://legaldocspro.net

DISCLAIMER:

Please note that the author of this blog post, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this blog post is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.

The materials and information contained in this blog post have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this blog post is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the author and any readers. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

 

 

 

 

 

Forebearance agreements in California foreclosures

http://www.legaldocspro.net/blog/foreclosure-forebearance-agreement-in-california/

CA Appellate Decision: Damage Claims Against OneWest Goes to Jury, Summary Judgment reversed

California Court of Appeal reverses summary judgment entered against homeowner in Banayan v. OneWest. This case is part of a growing trend in California of the Courts of Appeal reversing summary judgments and demurrers entered against homeowners suing the big banks and mortgage servicers.

Livinglies's Weblog

For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688

Sue Rose is my new administrative assistant. Danielle and Geordan do not work for livinglies or the Garfield firm. If you have placed an order which is unfulfilled please call the above numbers.

===================================

see CA Appeals OrderReversesMSJ

This case allows the jury to hear claims against OneWest for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, concealment, promissory estoppel, negligence, wrongful foreclosure, and violation of CA Business and Professional Code.

Here is an example of the obvious: a Judge takes no risk in denying a motion for summary judgment. It is only when the Judge grants summary judgment that there is a risk of reversal. With the current judicial climate changing in favor of borrowers, [including findings that the mortgage was absolutely void (invalid, non-perfected) where a sham nominee like MERS was used], Judges should take note that they are better off getting in front of…

View original post 509 more words

California Court Pierces the Curtain of Secrecy on WAMU Deals

A United States District Judge in the Northern District of California in case of Burke v.JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. rules that if a big bank such as WAMU had sold the loan before it then sold the loan to a trust or anyone else, then the entire chain is void. Another win for a California homeowner is always good news to me.

Livinglies's Weblog

For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688

NOTE: My new administrative assistant is Susan Rose. Danielle and Geordan no longer work for livinglies or my law practice.

==========================================

Hat Tip to Dan Edstrom, DTC Systems, our senior forensic analyst.

This decision finally brings the real issue to the forefront: who, if anyone, actually has the legal status of creditor or the right to claim ownership of the debt, loan, note or mortgage? In this case the Court correctly centered on the real issue: if WAMU had ALREADY sold the loan before it “sold” the loan to a trust or anyone else, then the entire chain is not just defective, or corrupted, it is void. And then you have quiet title, wrongful foreclosure and probably RICO although that does not seem to be in the pleadings for this case.

Lawyers take note: This Judge still doesn’t like the rambling shotgun…

View original post 1,308 more words

How We Became a Nation of Renters

Embed from Getty Images

How we became a nation of renters blog post by Neil Garfield.

Livinglies's Weblog

For more information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688

==============================

see http://www.pmguardian.com/how-americans-became-a-nation-of-renters/

The above link has an excellent info-graphic about the mortgage crisis and the changing nature of our society. What is perplexing is that people who oppose what the banks were allowed to hijack the loans are still saying that the problem is that the paperwork wasn’t done right. That is true of course but it isn’t the point. The point is that the banks did the unthinkable and then continued to profit and leverage off of a business model which consisted of getting away with pure theft. That the paperwork was wrong is a natural consequence of that behavior. This reality continues to escape most Judges, lay people and their lawyers.

If you or I defrauded someone into thinking that they were investing in a real company and instead went out and spent the money on groceries and did…

View original post 900 more words

Backing Banks Over Borrowers, California Judges Often Big Stakeholders in Same Banks

Judges in California often own stock in the big banks that are foreclosing on homeowners and often do not disclose that fact. That is outrageous and is one major reason that some courts routinely rule against the homeowners the great majority of the time.

Justice League

Sue your bank in California over a wrongful foreclosure, and the best you’re likely to get – if you have ironclad evidence that it broke the law – is a loan modification. That is, a “win” for the borrower usually means the bank keeps another customer and collects interest payments that are thousands of basis points above the level at which the bank is able to borrow from the Fed. Very often, however, homeowner lawsuits against the banks end in dismissal. In the parlance of the courts, the defendant’s demurrer is sustained. Judges in California’s superior courts often rule in favor of the banks, and the few lawsuits that filter up to the appeals courts and Supreme Court don’t fare any better.

Why do the banks keep winning in court against borrowers alleging wrongful foreclosure, fraud and other abuses? Many borrowers and their lawyers say there’s a judicial bias favoring…

View original post 1,383 more words

Judging De Minimis: Does the Judge in Your Foreclosure Case Own Stock in the Bank Foreclosing on You?

A Judge in Hawaii named Bert I. Ayabe that owns stock in the Bank foreclosing on Michael J. Fuchs refuses to remove themselves from the case! That is outrageous that this Judge refused to do this as the law clearly requires them to do.

Anyone that is involved in any litigation in a California State Court should carefully review the Form 700 Statements of Economic Interests for the Judge hearing their case, or that has been assigned to their case.

You can view The Form 700 for any Judge in California, or any other public official at the California Fair Political Practices Commission website at http://www.fppc.ca.gov/index.php?id=592

Note that the Statements of Financial Interests for Judges are somewhat dated as they are from 2012 but even that information may be useful in determining if the Judge hearing your particular case owns stock in large companies such as the big bank that is foreclosing on your property or the big corporation that you are involved in litigation with.

Coming soon will be a blog post on how to challenge the Judge hearing your case for cause as well as a sample verified statement for disqualification of a judge that can be filed against a judge.

 

Keep Your Home California establishes new program to help seniors with reverse mortgages

Keep Your Home California has established a new program to help California seniors with reverse mortgages. The program is officially known as the Reverse Mortgage Assistance Pilot Program.