Posted by & filed under Stockton Real Estate.

By Mandelman


Glaski v. Bank of America, N.A., 218 Cal. App. 4th 1079 (July 31, 2013), the decision was widely referred to as a “landmark.”

In Glaski the California Court of Appeal held that Mr. Glaski would be permitted to challenge a securitized trust’s chain of ownership by alleging that the transfer of the deed of trust to the securitized trust was too late… that is to say it occurred after the trust’s closing date… assuming it was a New York trust, I think, which it wasn’t in the Glaski case.

It was all very confusing, but widely viewed as very good news for borrowers, nonetheless, if for no other reason than it represented some movement in an otherwise intractable California judicial system as related to foreclosure defense.

Glaski appeared, at least on the surface, to be in direct opposition to several of California’s long-standing appellate court decisions. Among those were Jenkins v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 216 Cal. App. 4th 497 (May 17, 2013), and the infamous Gomes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 192 Cal. App. 4th 1149, (2011).

In Gomes, the California Court of Appeal basically ruled that the state’s non-judicial foreclosure statutes don’t provide for any sort of judicial action in order to ascertain whether the foreclosing party is authorized to foreclose.

Now, I’ll say it again just to make sure everyone hears it… I’m not a lawyer… but to me that sounds like some sort of oversight. The sort of thing that if pointed out in court or to anyone in the state legislature, would be met with a quizzical look, followed by, “No, that can’t be right… are you sure about that?”


In California you need to be able to prove you’re a licensed driver in order to drive a car, you also need to produce your vehicle’s registration and even proof of adequate insurance coverage… but to foreclose on someone’s property there’s no identification required.

We’re not allowed to have “stated income loans,” because they were called “liar loans.” But banks are allowed “stated ownership foreclosures?” No wonder so-called “robo-signing” isn’t seen as any sort of major problem… who cares who signed what, if there’s not even a part of the foreclosure process that ascertains whether you’re allowed to foreclose in the first place.

It seems pretty clear to me… homeowners are forgiven nothing, banks everything.

In Jenkins, the contradiction seemed even …read more

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *