![]() Section 2924.17 prohibits the practice of "robo-signing," in which servicers sign foreclosure documents without determining the right to foreclose. Plaintiff invokes sections 2924.18 of the California Civil Code, provisions of the recently enacted California Homeowners' Bill of Rights ("CHBR").These same basic arguments have repeatedly been rejected by the courts in this jurisdiction.") Go to 13, 2011) ("Initially, Krug contends that as a result of his loan having been "securitized" and the particular manner in which that was done, the entities now seeking to foreclose lack standing to do so, either because they in fact do not have the legal right to enforce the security obligation, or because, at a minimum, they have not established that they have such a right. As numerous district courts in this state have recognized, "a defendant bank does not invalidate its ability to enforce the terms of a deed of trust if the loan is assigned to a trust pool or Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit ("REMIC")." E.g., Christiansen v. To the extent that Plaintiff is arguing that securitizing a loan deprives a lender of the authority to foreclose, this theory fails as a matter of law. ![]() Complaint, ¶ 43 Plaintiff's Memorandum of Points and Authorities, 12:19-20.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |