What is a foreclosure sale?

Useful Rulings on Foreclosure Sale

Recent Rulings on Foreclosure Sale

ANDREW M. EGBE VS SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., ET AL.

While the appellate court ultimately concluded that res judicata did not apply because the first decision was not “on the merits,” the appellate court did conclude that the actions were founded on the same primary right ­— “namely, the right associated with the nonjudicial foreclosure scheme.” Such a primary right has equal application here — Egbe I and the instant action both rest on a primary right associated with the nonjudicial foreclosure scheme as it relates to the Property.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

JOHN MANOS VS WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, F.A., ET AL.

Analysis Defendants Make It Nice and Chase demur to the causes of action alleged against them on four grounds: (1) Plaintiff John Manos (“Plaintiff”)’s claims to the subject property are barred by res judicata, as they have been previously adjudicated against Plaintiff; (2) nonjudicial foreclosure statutes protect bona fide purchasers; and (3) Plaintiff failed to timely and properly tender.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

FELICIA JACINTA ANARO VS MASON-MCDUFFIE MORTGAGE CORPORATION AND U.S. BANK, N.A. ET AL.

After the third loan modification, plaintiff again defaulted, and nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings re-commenced. The property sold at Trustee’s Sale to a non-party to this action on June 13, 2019. The Trustee’s Deed upon Sale was recorded on June 25, 2019. RJN 21. Prior to the sale of the property at trustee’s sale, Plaintiff filed this action against Mason-McDuffie Mortgage Corporation (her original lender), U.S. Bank (its assignee) and MERS (U.S.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Judge

    George J. Abdallah

  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

MACK BROWN VS WESTERN PROGRESSIVE, ET AL.

to commence and execute a nonjudicial foreclosure sale.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

EDWARD RANDOLPH DAYTON V. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. ET AL.

As a preliminary matter the Court stated that, under the Act’s baseline definition of “debt collector” as “any person…in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or asserted to be owed or due another,” “a business engaged in nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings would qualify as a debt collector for all purposes.” (Id. at p. 1036.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

JENNIFER LECHTER VS JOSEPH LAM, ET AL.

Based on the record before the court at this time, the only adverse consequence to Lechter of issuing the preliminary injunction at least until the time the property sale closes or does not close is the loss of an opportunity to purchase the property in a nonjudicial foreclosure in which Lechter pays the Washington Mutual leiin his own liens but eliminates all interests junior to Lechter. This is hardly a basis for claiming prospective legal injury.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

JENNIFER LECHTER VS JOSEPH LAM, ET AL.

Based on the record before the court at this time, the only adverse consequence to Lechter of issuing the preliminary injunction at least until the time the property sale closes or does not close is the loss of an opportunity to purchase the property in a nonjudicial foreclosure in which Lechter pays the Washington Mutual leiin his own liens but eliminates all interests junior to Lechter. This is hardly a basis for claiming prospective legal injury.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

CLAUDETTE MARIE LESLIE, ET AL. VS NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE CORPORATION, ET AL.

Bank National Assn. (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 552, 565, 568 [“[W]e hold that Sciarratta has alleged the nonjudicial foreclosure was wrongful because an assignment by which the foreclosing party, Bank of America, purportedly took a beneficial interest in the deed of trust was void,” and because it was void, “tender was not required to state a cause of action for quiet title or for cancellation of instruments.”])

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

ALFONSO LUNA, ET AL. VS OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, ET AL.

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1149, 1156 (“California's nonjudicial foreclosure law does not provide for the filing of a lawsuit to determine whether MERS has been authorized by the holder of the Note to initiate a foreclosure.”).) The California Supreme Court’s holding in Yvanova does not alter this conclusion.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

JOSHUA M RODIN VS WESTBOURNE TOWNHOUSES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT MUTUAL BENEFIT CORPORATION, ET AL.

A trustee’s sale in a nonjudicial foreclosure sale can be set aside merely for procedural irregularity in the notice and sale procedures. Lona v. Citibank, N.A., (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 89, 106-07. Due to the lack of authorization from a board of directors and Defendants’ failure to comply with the statutory requirements for non-judicial foreclosure, Rodin has demonstrated a probability of success on his claim for wrongful foreclosure. 2.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

ROBERT COLE, ET AL. VS CENLAR CENTRAL LOAN ADMINISTRATION & REPORTING, ET AL.

Guild Mortgage Company, (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 736, 741-45 (allowing a plaintiff to assert a preemptive action would result in the impermissible interjection of the courts inconsistent with the policy behind nonjudicial foreclosure of providing a quick, inexpensive and efficient remedy). Plaintiffs lack standing to bring their claims as to Defendants’ authority to initiate the nonjudicial foreclosure process. 3.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

IN RE: 310 S. HILLCREST STREET

PETITION RE SURPLUS FUNDS The trustee seeks permission to deposit $25,411.70 remaining from the nonjudicial foreclosure sale of 310 S. Hillcrest Street. The petition must be continued. The governing statutes permit a trustee to deposit surplus funds with the Court if a conflict exists regarding competing claims thereto. However, the trustee has not identified any conflicting claims.

  • Hearing

    Jun 19, 2020

CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE VS. GARCIA

The Court notes, however, that nonjudicial foreclosure generally remains available even after the statute of limitations has run on an underlying note, thus title may remain clouded. Miller v. Provost (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1703, 1707-1708; Ung v. Koehler (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 186, 195. Requests for Judicial Notice Both parties requested that the Court take judicial notice of filings in the Estate of James P. Garcia, filed in the Superior Court of the County of Contra Costa, Case No.

  • Hearing

    Jun 17, 2020

BISAGNO V. RESOLVE DEFAULT SERVICES, LLC

We hold only that a borrower who has suffered a nonjudicial foreclosure does not lack standing to sue for wrongful foreclosure based on an allegedly void assignment merely because he or she was in default on the loan and was not a party to the challenged assignment. We do not hold or suggest that a borrower may attempt to preempt a threatened nonjudicial foreclosure by a suit questioning the foreclosing party's right to proceed.

  • Hearing

    Jun 05, 2020

SAVIOUR AZZOPARDI VS. DEUTSCHE BANK

There are four exceptions to the tender requirement in the nonjudicial foreclosure context: First, if the borrower’s action attacks the validity of the underlying debt, a tender is not required since it would constitute an affirmation of the debt. Second, a tender will not be required when the person who seeks to set aside the trustee’s sale has a counterclaim or set-off against the beneficiary.

  • Hearing

    Jun 04, 2020

ESTELLE YANCEY VS SELENE FINANCE, LP ET AL.

To initiate the nonjudicial foreclosure process, the ‘trustee, mortgagee, or beneficiary, or any of their authorized agents,’ must record a notice of default and election to sell. ( [Civ.Code,] § 2924, subd. (a)(1).)” (Citations.) The scheme further specifies the trustee's conduct of the sale and the notices that must be given in connection with it.

  • Hearing

    May 26, 2020

IN RE: 43 HOLLYHOCK LANE #236, ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656

APPLICATION/REQUEST: FOR ORDER RELEASING DEPOSITED FUNDS WITH PAYMENT OF INTEREST THEREON This relates to the nonjudicial foreclosure sale of 43 Hollyhock Lane #236 in Aliso Viejo. This condominium was originally acquired by Numerous liens and encumbrances were recorded against the property over the years, leading to the eventual foreclosure sale on 09/02/16. The property sold for $306,000.00, leaving a surplus of $101,530.93. Trustee gave notice to a myriad of potential claimants regarding the surplus.

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2020

DALE HARMS VS THE BANK OF NEW YORK

The Court notes that there are four exceptions to the tender requirement in the nonjudicial foreclosure context: First, if the borrower’s action attacks the validity of the underlying debt, a tender is not required since it would constitute an affirmation of the debt. Second, a tender will not be required when the person who seeks to set aside the trustee’s sale has a counterclaim or set-off against the beneficiary.

  • Hearing

    Mar 09, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

KRAGE V. WYNDHAM VACATION RESORTS, INC.

Even if Plaintiff’s allegation of the last payment due date is correct and gave rise to a statute of limitation against collection on the note itself, it would not bar nonjudicial foreclosure. (Napue v. Gor-Mey West, Inc. (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 608, 616.) Thus, Defendant’s alleged steps taken toward nonjudicial foreclosure would not have been wrongful. A failure to record a substitution of trustee is neither illegal nor a fraudulent act.

  • Hearing

    Mar 06, 2020

RODRIGUEZ VS OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLC

The 9th cause of action for slander of title based on the recordation of documents fails because the mailing, publication and delivery of foreclosure notices in nonjudicial foreclosure is privileged. (Civil Code § 47(c)(1); Kachlon v. Markowitz (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 316, 333) Further, MERS did not execute any foreclosure notices. The only document it recorded was the assignment interest transferring its beneficial interest to U.S. Bank.

  • Hearing

    Feb 27, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

RODRIGUEZ VS OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLC

The 9th cause of action for slander of title based on the recordation of documents fails because the mailing, publication and delivery of foreclosure notices in nonjudicial foreclosure is privileged. (Civil Code § 47(c)(1); Kachlon v. Markowitz (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 316, 333) Further, MERS did not execute any foreclosure notices. The only document it recorded was the assignment interest transferring its beneficial interest to U.S. Bank.

  • Hearing

    Feb 27, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

RODRIGUEZ VS OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLC

The 9th cause of action for slander of title based on the recordation of documents fails because the mailing, publication and delivery of foreclosure notices in nonjudicial foreclosure is privileged. (Civil Code § 47(c)(1); Kachlon v. Markowitz (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 316, 333) Further, MERS did not execute any foreclosure notices. The only document it recorded was the assignment interest transferring its beneficial interest to U.S. Bank.

  • Hearing

    Feb 27, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

KHURANA VS. CITIMORTGAGE

First, while there is a split in authority, the Court agrees with those decisions holding that a loan servicer does not generally owe the borrower a duty of care in the nonjudicial foreclosure context. (See, Sheen v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 346, 351-358.) The Court finds these decisions more persuasive because every conceivable aspect of the nonjudicial foreclosure process in California is intensely regulated by comprehensive statutory schemes, including, but not limited to, HBOR.

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

CROWN TOWERS HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION VS NIKOLAY MACHEVSKY, ET AL.

“An association that seeks to collect delinquent regular or special assessments of an amount less than one thousand eight hundred dollars ($1,800), not including any accelerated assessments, late charges, fees and costs of collection, attorney's fees, or interest, may not collect that debt through judicial or nonjudicial foreclosure” (Civ. Code, § 5720(a).) Before initiating a foreclosure on an owner’s separate interest, the association shall offer the owner to participate in a dispute resolution. (Civ.

  • Hearing

    Feb 10, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

PADILLA V. DEUTSCHE BANK

Bank to record its beneficial interest in the First Deed of Trust before anyone could initiate nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings on its behalf. Because U.S. Bank did not record the Assignment of Deed of Trust until more than a year after Cal–Western recorded the notice of default, the Rossbergs contend the notice is void.

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 30     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.