California Supreme Court Upholds Glaski opinion

Glaski is true!  Homeowners Can Sue on Bad Assignments! The Myth Mongers will come out in force saying this opinion means assignment snafus can void an otherwise perfectly just non-judicial foreclosure.  But it does not say that at all. In fact, Glaski says that a borrower may sue to undo a non-judicial foreclosure on the basis that the foreclosing party did not own beneficial interest in the note because of a flawed assignment of the note. The court specifically denied suggesting the borrower may preemptively sue to prevent the foreclosure because of a questionable assignment.

Other courts in California have repeatedly held that the borrower has no standing to sue regarding the wrongful assignment of the note or a breach of the pooling and servicing agreement because the borrower did not suffer an injury from it, does not receive benefits from it, and never became a party to it. Yvanova’s case will now go back to trial where she might decide to renew her effort to sue to undo the foreclosure because of a faulty assignment.  The court might deny her as other courts have others who challenged an allegedly faulty assignment.

What’s the bottom line issue here? Plain and simple – the assignment has NOTHING to do with whether the borrower owes the debt and must forfeit the property to foreclosure sale for breaching the note.

This is such a HARD CORE OBLIGATION that numerous states allow the non–judicial foreclosure process to become the equivalent of repossessing a car on which the borrower fails to make timely payments.  The principle:  creditors should not have to bear the expense of slogging through lengthy litigation in order to force a recalcitrant borrower to give up the collateral for the loan in default.  Creditors do NOT owe borrowers a free house.

Is there another issue of note? Yes.  Upwards of 95% of all home loan borrowers have suffered injuries in the form of appraisal fraud, mortgage fraud, legal errors, contract breaches, and/or regulatory law breaches.  To discover these, the borrower must hire a competent professional to conduct a comprehensive examination of all documents related to the loan transaction.  With an examination report in hand to prove the injuries, the borrower may negotiate a favorable settlement or sue for damages.  Only such an examination, and artfully presenting the causes of action revealed in the exam report, can provide a reliable way for the borrower to end up with cash in hand or other financial compensation for the injuries.

You can read the entire care here https://fraudstoppers.org/wp-content/uploads/YVANOVA-v.-NEW-CENTURY-1-1.pdf