By Mandelman
Hello, all… thanks for coming. If you’re from out-of-state… Welcome to California… “The Hardest Hit of the Hardest Hit States!” We’re thinking of having that line put on our license plates out here, by the way. Of course, that really irks some Floridians and Nevadans, but if you’ve got it… flaunt it… I always say. And besides, Florida’s got “The Rocket Docket,” and I hear in Nevada they’re thinking about offering free drinks while in the loan modification process.
If you’re not familiar with foreclosing in California, let’s get a few things straight about our quasi-liberal, but generally banking-friendly state… first of all, this is the Land of Gomes, Fontenot & Nguyen… meaning that for the most part, California courts do not care whether the note was assigned correctly, they do not care about MERS being involved as a beneficiary… what our courts care very deeply about is whether borrowers made their payments or didn’t.
In fact, up until last year, when our Attorney General, Kamala Harris somehow managed to pass the state’s Homeowners Bill of Rights, which codified the new servicer standards from the National Mortgage Settlement into state law, it often seemed that in a pinch, all one needed to foreclose in California was a Snickers’ wrapper and the allegation that the homeowner was in fact a deadbeat out to spin the lottery wheel of justice in the hopes of winning a free house.
The Glaski Decision…
Well, to a casual observer, Glaski v. Bank of America, et al, even as of the second amended complaint, might have looked like just another suit being brought by a California homeowner against his or her servicer, lender and trustee. The plaintiff, one Mr. Thomas Glaski had lost his home to foreclosure… he claimed, wrongfully. Nothing unusual about that so far. In fact, I would think in California it happens at least once a day… every day.
Were one to conduct only a cursory review of Mr. Glaski’s allegations in the case, as one could read in the Appellant’s Opening Brief, one might have concluded that it was no different than all the rest. To begin with, the homeowner’s complaint said that the documents used in the foreclosure were “robo-signed,” meaning that they contained improper or otherwise inadequate signatures, and further, that the entity foreclosing did not own of the loan because a defective transfer …read more
Leave a Reply