I posted to blogs, spoke with attorneys and homeowners and explained how the Yvanova case was much ado about nothing.
Despite expounding on the issues for 30 pages, the Yvanova opinion simply stands for the unremarkable (and, largely, undisputed) proposition that a borrower can sue for wrongful foreclosure where the transaction by which the beneficiary acquired the loan was void to begin with. That narrow holding has been misconstrued by borrowers’ counsel, and by some in the financial industry, who read much more into the Court’s decision than is actually in there.
As framed by the Supreme Court in its order, the sole issue up for review in Yvanova was whether, in a lawsuit for wrongful foreclosure on a deed of trust securing a home loan, the borrower has standing to challenge an assignment of the note and deed of trust by the original lender, or its agent, to a successor entity on the basis of defects allegedly rendering the assignment void.
Attached the Ct. of Appeals decision in California addressing what wasn’t addressed. Notice how the Ct. keeps going back to the language of the contract. Once again, these cases are won attacking the contract–Period! Not all of these “stall” arguments like: “MERS,” “produce the note,” “standing,” “assignment,””securitization,” etc. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1729179.html