What is a foreclosure sale?

Useful Rulings on Foreclosure Sale

Recent Rulings on Foreclosure Sale

BLAKE VS. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC

Effective January 1, 2013, the Homeowner Bill of Rights (“HBOR”) modified the nonjudicial foreclosure process by ensuring that specified borrowers who may qualify for a foreclosure alternative “are considered for, and have a meaningful opportunity to obtain, available loss mitigation options …” (See Civ.C. § 2923.4.)

  • Hearing

HA, ET AL. V. PHAM, ET AL.

While “[a] nonjudicial foreclosure sale is accompanied by a common law presumption that it ‘was conducted regularly and fairly’… [and t]his presumption may only be rebutted by substantial evidence of prejudicial procedural irregularity,” and while a “trustor cannot set aside a foreclosure sale to a BFP ‘based on irregularities in the foreclosure sale process, except in the case of fraud” (Lona v.

  • Hearing

FELICIA C BROWN VS SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., ET AL.

Declaratory relief is not available to plaintiff, due to the comprehensive nature of the nonjudicial foreclosure statutory framework, as set forth above. Plaintiffs fail to allege any actual controversy. Demurrer is SUSTAINED.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ERIC MANDELL WILLIAMS VS SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, ET AL.

The HBOR applies only to the nonjudicial foreclosure of “first lien” mortgages. (Civ.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

ALTEFINTECH VS CALCAP PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

The plaintiff’s hands are soiled from its decision to retain possession of the property after all rights to do so have been extinguished by the nonjudicial foreclosure. Such inequitable conduct should not be facilitated by a court of equity.

  • Hearing

MANZANO V. WELLS FARGO BANK

Plaintiffs request that the court order that the nonjudicial foreclosure sale on August 18 2020 was void; that plaintiffs be allowed to remain in the residence; and that they be awarded monetary damages against defendant Fay Servicing. LLC.

  • Hearing

GULLIERMO GUTIERREZ VS. SD LENDING LLC

Plaintiff seeks to set aside the nonjudicial foreclosure of the property at issue in this case.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

GULLIERMO GUTIERREZ VS. SD LENDING LLC

Plaintiff seeks to set aside the nonjudicial foreclosure of the property at issue in this case.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

GULLIERMO GUTIERREZ VS. SD LENDING LLC

Plaintiff seeks to set aside the nonjudicial foreclosure of the property at issue in this case.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

GULLIERMO GUTIERREZ VS. SD LENDING LLC

Plaintiff seeks to set aside the nonjudicial foreclosure of the property at issue in this case.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

ORNA SHAPOSHNIK VS SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., ET AL.

California's nonjudicial foreclosure statutes provide no pre-foreclosure basis to challenge the authority of an entity initiating the foreclosure process. Jenkins v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 497, 513; Siliga v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 75, 82; Kan v. Guild Mortgage Co. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 736, 744-45, 749. The FAC lacks any factual allegation showing that a trustee sale has been conducted.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

ESTRELLA A. AGUINALDO, ET AL. VS ERNESTO A. ABAD, ET AL.

Second, the meaning of action as relevant to CCP § 726 does not include a nonjudicial foreclosure. “The meaning of “action” for purposes of Code of Civil Procedure § 726 is controlled by the definition at Code of Civil Procedure § 22. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 22; Wozab, 51 Cal.3d at 998, 275 Cal.Rptr. 201, 800 P.2d 557.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

MARTIN A, SCHAINBAUM VS, OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, ET AL

P, Morgan Chase Bank, NA. (2013) 216 Ca1.App.4‘h 497, where it found that Plaintiffs home was subject to nonjudicial foreclosure because of Plaintiffs default on her loan, which occun'ed before defendants' alleged wrongful acts. (See Lueras v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, supra 221 Cal.App.4‘h at p. 82 citing Jenkins v. JP. Morgan Chase Bank, NA. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4“' 497, 523.)

  • Hearing

ROBERT GABRIEL VS QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION, ET AL.

The California Supreme Court expressly stated that the court’s holding is “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.” (Id.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

KAREN G. PETROSOV, ET AL. VS MICHAEL CHARLES JOSEPH, ET AL.

“A nonjudicial foreclosure sale is presumed to have been conducted regularly and fairly; one attacking the sale must overcome this common law presumption ‘by pleading and proving an improper procedure and the resulting prejudice.’” (Knapp v. Doherty (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 76, 86, fn. 4 [20 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1], italics added.) “‘Prejudice is not presumed from “mere irregularities” in the process.’” (Herrera v. Federal National, supra, 205 Cal.App.4th at p. 1507.) (Kalnoki v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

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

NABIL ABDELMASIEH GHALY VS TROJAN CAPITAL INVESTMENTS, LLC

The court will hear from Plaintiff regarding any basis for leave to amend. 2nd and 5th CAUSES OF ACTION DECLARATORY RELIEF and UNLAWFUL BUSINESS PRACTICES: The California Supreme Court held that in order for a borrower to possess standing to challenge an assignment, the borrower must (1) have suffered a nonjudicial foreclosure and (2) allege facts showing that the allegedly underlying defect renders the assignment void, rather than merely voidable. (Yvanova v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BRENDEM PLONG, ET AL. VS RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT SERVICE LLC., ET AL.

“A nonjudicial foreclosure sale is accompanied by a common law presumption that it ‘was conducted regularly and fairly.’ (Brown v. Busch (1957) 152 Cal.App.2d 200, 204, 313 P.2d 19; see also Stevens v. Plumas Eureka Annex Min. Co. (1935) 2 Cal.2d 493, 497, 41 P.2d 927.) This presumption may only be rebutted by substantial evidence of prejudicial procedural irregularity.” (Melendrez v. D & I Investment, Inc. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1258; Civ. Code §2924(c).)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LILES VS SERVIS ON INC

The facts alleged in the fourth cause of action for wrongful foreclosure, together with the exhibits attached to the first amended complaint, do not establish that the defendants have acted outside the bounds of the "exhaustive," "comprehensive framework" established by the Legislature for nonjudicial foreclosure. Melendrez v. D&I Investment, Inc. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1238.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

IN RE: 7881 FRANKLIN STREET, BUENA PARK, CA 90621

Unresolved Claims This is a special petition by the foreclosing trustee to deposit surplus funds remaining from a nonjudicial foreclosure sale. The petition to deposit is premature. Based on the information provided, there is no true conflict between righteous claimants. Trustee advises that the owner of record at the time of the foreclosure sale has since passed away. That means his estate is likely the proper recipient of the surplus funds on hand, which at the time were $68,359.31.

  • Hearing

LILES VS SERVIS ON INC

The facts alleged in the fourth cause of action for wrongful foreclosure, together with the exhibits attached to the first amended complaint, do not establish that the defendants have acted outside the bounds of the "exhaustive," "comprehensive framework" established by the Legislature for nonjudicial foreclosure. Melendrez v. D&I Investment, Inc. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1238.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS CERTIFICATE TRUSTEE ON BEHALF OF BOSCO CREDIT II TRUST SERIES VS GUILLERMO DAKAY MONTALBAN ET AL.

Plaintiff seeks a determination of its interest in the Property so it can initiate nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings. (Plf. UMF 15-16 (both undisputed).) Defendants do not dispute the facts alleged by Plaintiff. (Plf. UMF 18 (undisputed).) Between January 15, 2009, and the present, the County recorded several Notices of Lien for Unsecured Property Taxes (collectively “Lien Notices”). (Plf. UMF 17 (undisputed).)

  • Hearing

KEN Y. PARK, ET AL. VS KWANG TAE KIM, ET AL.

A nonjudicial foreclosure must strictly comply with any applicable statutory requirements. Whitman v. Translate Title Co., (1985) 165 Cal. App. 3d 312, 322. In order to state a claim under the unlawful prong of Bus. & Prof. Code section 17200, a plaintiff merely needs to show that the defendant employed business acts forbidden by law, be it civil or criminal, federal, state, or municipal, statutory, regulatory, or court-made. Saunders v. Superior Court, (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 832, 838-39.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

CHAPTER ONE LAND TRUST VS SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., ET AL.

For instance, the Court of Appeal in the Second District held that “section 2924 deems the statutorily required mailing, publication, and delivery of notices in nonjudicial foreclosure, and the performance of statutory nonjudicial foreclosure procedures, to be privileged communications under the qualified common-interest privilege of section 47, subdivision (c)(1). (Kachlon v. Markowitz (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 316, 333; see also Rockridge Trust v. Wells Fargo, N.A. (N.D.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

HOLDEN V. MR. COOPER MORTGAGE

Thus, “section 2924 deems the statutorily required mailing, publication, and delivery of notices in nonjudicial foreclosure, and the performance of statutory nonjudicial foreclosure procedures, to be privileged communications under the qualified common-interest privilege of section 47, subdivision (c)(1).” (Kachlon v. Markowitz (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 316, 333.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 32     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.