Source: http://www.certifiedforensicloanauditors.com/wrongful-foreclosure-lawsuits-4.23.16-video.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 17:26:50+00:00

Document:
Being offered because of popular demand to those unable to travel/attend our April 23, 2016 CLE in Los Angeles, CA.
Patricia Rodriguez, Esq. & George M. Hill, Esq.
Founder of The Rodriguez Law Group, Inc.
Ms. Rodriguez has over 15 years of experience in the legal profession. She is the lead attorney at Rodriguez Law Group, Inc. Ms. Rodriguez is regularly invited to lecture on topics involved in foreclosure defense such as the Homeowner’s Bill of Rights, Federal Regulations, and Securitization. During her legal tenure she has represented thousands of homeowners, borrowers, and tenants in their disputes amongst themselves and with the banks. She advocates on behalf of commercial and residential homeowners in disputes against all major banks such as Chase, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Bank of New York Mellon, etc. She provides extensive assistance and litigation support to other law firms in both State and Federal actions regarding foreclosure laws, loan modification policies, and foreclosure recovery­related legislation. You can learn more about her legal practice online at www.attorneyprod.com.
Managing Attorney of the Rodriguez Law Group, Inc.
Mr. Hill has been an entrepreneur for over 20 years and has been in the legal field and a general legal practitioner for 10 years. Mr. Hill has extensive knowledge in best business practices, securities regulation, business formations, and mergers and acquisitions. Mr. Hill is experienced in various forms of civil litigation cases, including those related to real estate, foreclosures, and other home­borrower issues. Mr. Hill has defended and prosecuted cases in the California Courts of Appeal, Superior Courts of California, the United States District Courts, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, on a myriad of issues concerning borrowers and the foreclosure industry, including current foreclosure law, loan modification regulations, post­foreclosure regulations, and unlawful detainers. With his business and legal experience, he has gained a complex and reasoned view to the foreclosure field from which all can benefit.
"This course was the missing link in putting together all the knowledge I’ve already been accumulating, but was not able to assimilate into a prosecutable document for submission which an attorney can use in litigation. Thanks!"
"This is a course that every American citizen can use to fight back against Wall Street and the banks to keep or receive compensation for the mortgage fraud committed on 85% of loan originated between 2001-2008. Liz and Art are a God send!"
"Personally, the course is an enhancement because I’m already particular with about 95% of it. Although, I notice there are beginners in the class and I highly recommend the course and its instructors combined because I saw and noticed how these beginners were able to comprehend and able to finish their homework and finals on the 3rd day. The other 25% of the course was my "core" information to enhance my knowledge and the course & instructors made me achieve what I expected to learn. Thanks!"
"Excellent information! The tracking of assignments, very thorough. Instructors’ knowledge of these securitization processes are very strong. CFLA’s commitment is very strong to students and to excellence."
"I really enjoy the class. I met a lot of professional’s and made strong connections. I feel fortunate to come across this class, from my classmate. I would recommend this class to anyone moving forward."
"This was an amazing seminar that gave me the knowledge to help Homeowner’s to fight for their Right’s against greedy banker’s and mortgage companies."
"Had a great time with the class and instructor’s, class was informative and I would recommend it to anyone who wants to learn more about Mortgage Securitization"
"Learn as much as you can. Think outside the box and be analytical. Learning this will allow you to be helpful to the community as well as society. Enjoy the fact that we are here to help. If I can help just one person to stay in their home I have done society a world of good"
"This class is something that everyone in the mortgage profession, need’s to take."
"If you have but one thing you do to further your education, make it this course. This is something that can be utilized in almost every real estate situation that exist today. What you can do with the information you learn will change lives"
"I would recommend anyone that is on a quest to weaken the banks in their games of lies and deceit to do almost whatever it takes to take this course"
"Classmates were open and eager to learn. Environment promoted real learning and interactive participation"
"This course has helped me broaden client’s loan analysis. I recommend this course to anyone in the real estate litigation business for serious consideration"
"Best student would have experience in area of mortgages, foreclosure defense, auditing and/or legal field regarding foreclosure defense. Provides an excellent platform upon which to develop dynamic and effective defenses, to turn the tables of lenders and /or their legal counsel regarding consumer mortgage defense. Instructors are enthusiastic and highly competent and informed with excellent teaching skills"
"Great course for understanding mortgages and securitization after origination. AKA the secondary market BLACK HOLE"
"Excellent instructors! They have in depth and practical knowledge of securitization audits"
"Learning how to navigate through the securitization site and understanding the legal process of securitization makes this course extremely valuable"
The Notice of Default: The Bank is giving the Homeowner notice that according to the Bank Homeowner owes the bank and hasn’t paid.
Wedgewood v. Brown-Wilson: Court reversed a trial court because Plaintiff failed to provde duly perfected title as mandated by CCP Section 1161 and a trustee’s deed upon sale is not prima facie evidence of a duly perfected title contrary to previous holdings in the appellate division. Riverside – not published so persuasive case law.
California Finance Code §§ 4973, et seq., 22000, et seq. and 50000, et seq.
Plaintiff must allege that their loan is covered under this provision. A consumer loan more than $417K is not covered. No exceptions to this rule have been identified.
Statute of Limitations – The SOL has passed for most if not all of our claims. Therefore, we must allege that Equitable Tolling applies, otherwise, the court may dismiss without leave to amend.
Substitution is effected AFTER notice of default recorded but prior to notice of sale.
Notice of sale must be re-sent with substituted trustee information, otherwise the sale is void.
Effective date drastically different from recordation date.
Occurs where a notice of default or notice of sale is recorded prior to a valid assignment. The entity recording the NOD and/or NTS does not have authority to record the document as they have not received any beneficial interest.
This statutory violation has SERIOUS LIMITATIONS. Several courts have found this section inapplicable to deeds of trust and only apply it to mortgages.
6th District: Derbrunner v. Duetsche Bank: March 16, 2012.
Each time the NOTE was transferred by law there was supposed to be a duly signed assignment (from Originator to Sponsor/Seller to Depositor); this did not occur in most cases.
In a 2013 United States Court of Appeals Case, in the Fifth District of California, the Appellate Court held that a borrower may challenge the securitized trust’s chain of ownership by alleging the attempts to transfer the deed of trust to the securitized trust (which was formed under New York law) occurred after the trust’s closing date. This case is the highly analyzed Glaski v. Bank of America, N.A., et al, Court of Appeal, Fifth District of California, Case No. F064556.
Glaski held as follows: That transfers that violate the terms of the trust instrument are void under New York trust law, and borrowers have standing to challenge void assignments of their loans even though they are not a party to, or a third party beneficiary of, the assignment agreement. Glaski v. Bank of America, N.A., et al, Court of Appeal, Fifth District of California, Case No. F064556.
The Glaski Court specifically noted “We reject the view that a borrower's challenge to an assignment must fail once it is determined that the borrower was not a party to, or third party beneficiary of, the assignment agreement. Cases adopting that position “paint with too broad a brush.” Culhane v. Aurora Loan Services of Nebraska, supra, 708 F.3d at p. 290. Instead, courts should proceed to the question whether the assignment was void. Glaski v. Bank of America, N.A., et al, , supra.
Federal Courts are not favorable to Glaski.
Alternate theories when applying Glaski must be used as part of your analysis.
NOTE: Opposing Parties will argue that Glaski should be analyzed as a minority view held by citing the decision of Jenkins v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 497.
In the matter of Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the action brought by Yvanova against New Century Mortgage Corporation as well as numerous other financial institutions alleging the mortgage and deed of trust on the plaintiff’s residence were improperly securitized and assigned from the original lender to several successive mortgagees and trustees, and ultimately improperly sold at foreclosure.
In the matter of Keshtgar v. U.S. Bank, N.A., the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the action brought by Keshtgar against U.S. Bank, N.A. and various other financial institutions alleging that after plaintiff executed a note secured by a deed of trust on the real property, the deed was allegedly assigned to U.S. Bank, N.A. as trustee for the certificate holders of the Harborview Mortgage Loan Trust. Plaintiff alleged that U.S. Bank did not receive an assignment of the note, was never in possession of the note, never acquired the rights of nor is it a successor to the original lender or any other entity, and as such, U.S. Bank did not have the legal ability to exercise any rights under the deed of trust, including the power of sale.
On October 1, 2014, the California Supreme Court granted a petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in the civil action. The Supreme Court has ordered briefing be deferred pending the decision in Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp., which presents the following issue: In an action for wrongful foreclosure o a deed of trust securing a home loan, does the borrower have standing to challenge an assignment of the note and deed of trust on the basis of defects allegedly rendering the assignment void?
In the matter of Mendoza v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. the Californa Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the action brought by Mendoza against JP Morgan Chase Bank and various other financial institutions alleging, similar to Yvanova and Keshtgar, improper securitization and invalid assignments and that Mendoza has standing to challenge the improper securitization of the loan.
On November 12, 2014, the California Supreme Court granted a petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in the civil action. Similar to the Keshtgar matter, the Supreme Court ordered briefing deferred pending the decision in the Yvanova matter.
Bank of New York v. Silverberg, 2011 NY Slip Op 5002, 6.
Most of the provisions of the Act only apply to lenders that foreclose on more than 175 residential properties per year.
A person or entity who directly services a loan, or who is responsible for interacting with the borrower, managing the loan account on a daily basis either as the current owner of the promissory note or as the current owner’s authorized agent, or subservicing agent to a master servicer by contract.
Written response if the lender denies the application. This written notice must include the specific reasons for the denial and the deadline for the borrower to appeal the denial (30 days).
Single point of contact throughout the loan modification process and with at least one direct method to reach the point of contact.
Does not apply to any borrowers who have already exhausted the loan modification process described above in Civil Code section 2924.6.
Postponement of at least 10 business days require written notice to the borrower of the new sale date and time within five business days of the date of the postponement.
Prohibits mortgage servicers from charging borrowers application fees for a first lien loan modification or other foreclosure prevention alternative.
Forbids a mortgage servicer from charging borrowers late fees under the loan for the period during which the loan modification is under consideration, while a borrower has filed an appeal of the denial of a loan modification, or the borrower is making timely modification payments.
Borrowers can sue mortgage servicers for injunctive relief before the trustee’s deed upon sale has recorded, or if it has already recorded, to sue for actual economic damages, if the mortgage servicer has not corrected any “material” violation before the trustee’s deed upon sale recorded.
If a court finds that the violation was intentional, reckless or willful, the court can award the borrower the greater of treble (triple) damages or $50,000.
A violation of the Act is also deemed to be a violation of the licensing laws if committed by a person licensed as a consumer or commercial finance lender or broker, a residential mortgage lender or servicer, or a licensed real estate broker or salesman.
Court may award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to borrower as the prevailing party.
Did you receive a notice of trustee sale?
Did you receive a notice of default?
Were you reviewed for a loan modification and/or other loss mitigation efforts?
Were you contacted regarding any loss mitigation options?
Was a NOD recorded while you were under review?
Was a NTS recorded while you were under review?
Was there a sale while you were under review?
Did you submit a loan modification?
When did you submit the loan modification?
Has a notice of default/notice of trustee sale been recorded? When?
Has there been a trustee’s sale? When?
Did you request a single point of contact?
Were you given a single point of contact?
No entity shall record or cause a notice of default to be recorded or otherwise initiate the foreclosure process unless it is the holder of the beneficial interest under the mortgage or deed of trust, the original trustee or the substituted trustee under the deed of trust, or the designated agent of the holder of the beneficial intrest. No agent of the holder of the beneficial interest under the mortgage or deed of trust, original trustee or substituted trustee under the deed of trust may record a notice of default or otherwise commence the foreclosure process except when acting within the scope of authority designated by the holder of the beneficial interest.
The entity foreclosing must be the original lender, assigned beneficiary, original trustee or valid substituted trustee. If this does not exist, there there is a violation.
It is also imperative to analyze the recorded documents, any securitization analysis report, etc.
All borrowers must notify any potential tenants of the recorded Notice of Default prior to signing lease agreements.
Do you have any tenants?
Did you notify them of the NOD prior to signing the lease?
Within five business days of recording a notice of default, a mortgage servicer that offers one or more foreclosure prevention alternatives shall send a written communication to the borrower advising the borrower of loss mitigation options.
Did you receive a notice of loss mitigation options?
Was the notice received within five (5) business days of recording the NOD?
When a borrower submits a complete loan modification application or any other lien modification application, the bank/servicer shall provide written acknowledgment of receipt of the documentation within five (5) business days of receipt.
Have you submitted a loan modification?
Did you receive a notice each time acknowledging receipt of the documents?
Were all notices received within five (5) business days of the documents arriving at the bank/servicer?
If the bank/servicer approves a loan modification in writing prior to the recordation of a notice of default, the bank/servicer cannot subsequently record a Notice of Default.
Were you approved in writing for a foreclosure prevention?
Was there a notice of default recorded after this approval?
Did you decline the written foreclosure prevention?
Prior to the recording of a trustee’s deed upon sale a borrower can seek injunctive relief to stop the sale of the property.
Have you received a notice of trustee’s sale?
Was the notice of trustee’s sale recorded?
Sections 2923.5, 2923.7 and 2924.11 applies only to first lien mortgages or deeds of trust that are secured by owner-occupied residential real property.
May be able to bring a claim for a non-owner occupied property under a violation of B&P Code 17200.
A declaration recorded pursuant to a notice of default, notice of sale, assignment of a deed of trust, or a substitution of trustee shall be accurate and complete and supported by competent and reliable evidence.
Recorded documents must be reviewed to determine if there is a violation.
If a complete application for a loan modification is submitted by the borrower, the bank/servicer cannot record a notice of default, a notice of sale or conduct a trustee’s sale while the complete loan modification application is pending AND until the borrower has been provided with a written determination by the mortgage servicer regarding the borrower’s eligibility for the requested loan modification.
Were you under review for a loan modification?
Did you submit a COMPLETE application?
Was a notice of default recorded while under review?
Was a notice of sale recorded while under review?
Was there a sale while under review?
Were you denied a loan modification while under review?
Were you provided a written denial?
Were you given thirty (30) days to appeal before a notice of default, or notice of sale was recorded?
Were you given thirty (30) days to appeal before a sale actually occurred?
(a) Disclosure of obligor’s right to rescind: Except as otherwise provided in this section, in the case of any consumer credit transaction (including opening or increasing the credit limit for an open end credit plan) in which a security interest, including any such interest arising by operation of law, is or will be retained or acquired in any property which is used as the principal dwelling of the person to whom credit is extended, the obligor shall have the right to rescind the transaction until midnight of the third business day following the consummation of the transaction or the delivery of the information and rescission forms required under this section together with a statement containing the material disclosures required under this subchapter, whichever is later, by notifying the creditor, in accordance with regulations of the Bureau, of his intention to do so. The creditor shall clearly and conspicuously disclose, in accordance with regulations of the Bureau, to any obligor in a transaction subject to this section the rights of the obligor under this section. The creditor shall also provide, in accordance with regulations of the Bureau, appropriate forms for the obligor to exercise his right to rescind any transaction subject to this section.
(b) Return of money or property following rescission: When an obligor exercises his right to rescind under subsection (a) of this section, he is not liable for any finance or other charge, and any security interest given by the obligor, including any such interest arising by operation of law, becomes void upon such a rescission. Within 20 days after receipt of a notice of rescission, the creditor shall return to the obligor any money or property given as earnest money, downpayment, or otherwise, and shall take any action necessary or appropriate to reflect the termination of any security interest created under the transaction. If the creditor has delivered any property to the obligor, the obligor may retain possession of it. Upon the performance of the creditor’s obligations under this section, the obligor shall tender the property to the creditor, except that if return of the property in kind would be impracticable or inequitable, the obligor shall tender its reasonable value. Tender shall be made at the location of the property or at the residence of the obligor, at the option of the obligor. If the creditor does not take possession of the property within 20 days after tender by the obligor, ownership of the property vests in the obligor without obligation on his part to pay for it. The procedures prescribed by this subsection shall apply except when otherwise ordered by a court.
(c) Rebuttable presumption of delivery of required disclosures: Notwithstanding any rule of evidence, written acknowledgment of receipt of any disclosures required under this subchapter by a person to whom information, forms, and a statement is required to be given pursuant to this section does no more than create a rebuttable presumption of delivery thereof.
(d) Modification and waiver of rights: The Bureau may, if it finds that such action is necessary in order to permit homeowners to meet bona fide personal financial emergencies, prescribe regulations authorizing the modification or waiver of any rights created under this section to the extent and under the circumstances set forth in those regulations.
This section does not apply to— (1) a residential mortgage transaction as defined in section 1602 (w)  of this title; (2) a transaction which constitutes a refinancing or consolidation (with no new advances) of the principal balance then due and any accrued and unpaid finance charges of an existing extension of credit by the same creditor secured by an interest in the same property; (3) a transaction in which an agency of a State is the creditor; or (4) advances under a preexisting open end credit plan if a security interest has already been retained or acquired and such advances are in accordance with a previously established credit limit for such plan.
(1) any agency empowered to enforce the provisions of this subchapter institutes a proceeding to enforce the provisions of this section within three years after the date of consummation of the transaction, (2) such agency finds a violation of this section, and (3) the obligor’s right to rescind is based in whole or in part on any matter involved in such proceeding, then the obligor’s right of rescission shall expire three years after the date of consummation of the transaction or upon the earlier sale of the property, or upon the expiration of one year following the conclusion of the proceeding, or any judicial review or period for judicial review thereof, whichever is later.
(h) Limitation on rescission: An obligor shall have no rescission rights arising solely from the form of written notice used by the creditor to inform the obligor of the rights of the obligor under this section, if the creditor provided the obligor the appropriate form of written notice published and adopted by the Bureau, or a comparable written notice of the rights of the obligor, that was properly completed by the creditor, and otherwise complied with all other requirements of this section regarding notice.
(B) the form of notice of rescission for the transaction is not the appropriate form of written notice published and adopted by the Bureau or a comparable written notice, and otherwise complied with all the requirements of this section regarding notice.
Tolerance for disclosures: Notwithstanding section 1605 (f) of this title, and subject to the time period provided in subsection (f) of this section, for the purposes of exercising any rescission rights after the initiation of any judicial or nonjudicial foreclosure process on the principal dwelling of the obligor securing an extension of credit, the disclosure of the finance charge and other disclosures affected by any finance charge shall be treated as being accurate for purposes of this section if the amount disclosed as the finance charge does not vary from the actual finance charge by more than $35 or is greater than the amount required to be disclosed under this subchapter.
Right of recoupment under State law: Nothing in this subsection affects a consumer’s right of rescission in recoupment under State law.
Applicability: This subsection shall apply to all consumer credit transactions in existence or consummated on or after September 30, 1995.
(A) the identity, address, telephone number of the new creditor; (B) the date of transfer; (C) how to reach an agent or party having authority to act on behalf of the new creditor; (D) the location of the place where transfer of ownership of the debt is recorded; and (E) any other relevant information regarding the new creditor.
(2) Definition: As used in this subsection, the term “mortgage loan” means any consumer credit transaction that is secured by the principal dwelling of a consumer.
Review the recorded documents and the file to determine if there have been any transfers. If the original lender is not the foreclosing party – which is determined by looking at the notice of default and notice of trustee sale – then there must have been a transfer which may be evidenced by a recorded assignment.
12 C.F.R. § 1024.41(b)(1) - If the servicer deems the loss mitigation application to be incomplete, the servicer must act affirmatively to complete the application. The servicer must exercise “reasonable diligence” to obtain any documents and information it claims to require to complete the application. “A complete loss mitigation application means an application in connection with which a servicer has received all the information that the servicer requires from a borrower in evaluating applications for the loss mitigation options available to the borrower. A servicer shall exercise reasonable diligence in obtaining documents and information to complete a loss mitigation application” Reg. X, 12 C.F.R. § 1024.41(b)(1).
Long Term Clients – multiple law suits – consider each new lawsuit filed that there may be claims that are precluded under res judicata if prior suit was dismissed with prejudice or two previously filed complaints dismissed without prejudice (as that equals a dismissal with prejudice).
Although some causes of actions may be precluded if you have new facts (new recorded documents, new review, new rescission) you will want to cross reference those new facts to the checklist of causes of action. Just deduct (minus) any claims precluded by res judicata.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1024
 § 1024