Source: http://certifiedforensicloanauditors.com/articles/04.15/ca-attorney-general-files-amicus-brief-for-homeowners-robo-signing-forgery-tila-rescission.html
Timestamp: 2017-12-16 16:49:10
Document Index: 296878514

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2923', '§ 2923', '§ 2924', '§ 2924', '§ 2923', '§ 2924']

What a helpful document: AmicusBrief.pdf
In the brief, California Civil Code list (item 1.B on p11) addresses a range of misconduct in the mortgage industry:
restriction on "dual-tracking" (§ 2923.6)
requiring a single point of contact for homeowners (§ 2923.7)
requirement of "competent and reliable evidence" - anti-robosigning protection (§ 2924.17)
private right of action to enforce protections (§ 2924.12)
New CA Civil Code sections are listed on p12:
homeowners can request a copy of the original promissory note and applicable assignments (§ 2923.55(b))
foreclosing party must be the "holder of the beneficial interest" in the debt (§ 2924(a)(6))
Item II.B on p16: "A defect in the chain of title that renders a debt assignment void is one way in which a foreclosing party may lack the lawful authority to foreclose."
To me, this brief seems to be very strong legal support for winning in court that a robo-signed Assignment is void and cannot be used to prove debt ownership, which debt ownership must be proven to legally foreclose.
Here is work I've done to date on robosigned documents: http://hofj.org/default.asp.pg-Forgery
And it seems to me that this Amicus Brief would be extremely helpful in a TILA Rescission lender compliance lawsuit, particularly a quiet title action where debt ownership must be proven by the lender for the debt to remain as a lien on the property: http://hofj.org/default.asp.pg-Rescission.