Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The California Supreme Court's narrow ruling on a borrower's standing to challenge the validity of the chain of assignments involved in the securitization of her loans in "Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp." (62 Cal.4th 919 (2016)) clarified what was the dispositive issue in this appeal, but expressly did not decide how to resolve it. In "Yvanova," the Court held a borrower had standing to allege that an assignment of the promissory note and deed of trust to the foreclosing party is void, not voidable; yet it did not decide whether a post-closing date transfer into a New York securitized trust is void or voidable. New York law, as interpreted by an overwhelming majority of New York, California, and federal courts, however, provided that defects in the securitization of loans can be ratified by the beneficiaries of the trusts established to hold the mortgage-backed securities and, as a result, the assignments are voidable. Following this precedent, the Court of Appeal concluded plaintiff Maria Mendoza did not have standing to challenge the alleged irregularities in the securitization of her loan. Therefore, the trial court's dismissal of the second amended complaint for wrongful foreclosure, declaratory relief, and quiet title was affirmed. View "Mendoza v. JPMorgan Chase Bank" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a borrower of a home loan, filed suit against lending banks, seeking an injunction to prevent a foreclosure. The trial court sustained the lenders’ demurrers and entered a judgment of dismissal. The court held that the availability of injunctive relief under the 2013 Homeowner's Bill of Rights (HBOR) is governed exclusively by its two provisions - Civil Code, sections 2924.12, subdivision (a)(1) and 2924.19, subdivision (a)(1) - in which the Legislature authorized the courts to interpose such relief into the nonjudicial foreclosure scheme. Neither provision authorizes a court to enjoin a violation of section 2924(a)(6). Thus, no injunctive relief is available for a violation of that section. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment. Furthermore, plaintiff failed to show a reasonable possibility of amending his complaint to plead any of the grounds for injunctive relief that the HBOR authorizes. The court also affirmed the trial court’s order sustaining without leave to amend a demurrer to a separate breach of contract cause of action. View "Lucioni v. Bank of America" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his lender, Impac, and others, alleging causes of action arising from the nonjudicial foreclosure sale of his residence. The trial court sustained defendants' demurrer to the entire pleading without leave to amend, and thereafter entered a judgment of dismissal. The court concluded that plaintiff offered no citation to federal or California authority (other than Glaski v. Bank of America, which the court declined to follow) to support his assertion that a 2009 assignment is void because it was made after the ISA Trust’s closing date; plaintiff has the burden to prove that the nonjudicial foreclosure was wrongful; even if language in the deed of trust might have provided plaintiff with standing to assert a defense to prevent a foreclosure, it does not help him in this instance; the problem with plaintiff's claims is not that the deed of trust precludes him from alleging an invalid assignment, but that he has not sufficiently alleged an invalid assignment; and, because he has not alleged sufficient facts to establish that critical allegation, the proposed new cause of action would also fail as a matter of law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Yhudai v. Impac Funding Corp." on Justia Law

In 2007, Naifeh and Ristic obtained a loan from WaMu for San Francisco property. WaMu provided a disclosure of the loan terms as required by the Truth in Lending Act (TILA, 15 U.S.C. 1601). After the borrowers defaulted, Naifeh sent letters, asserting that she and Ristic were rescinding the loan under “Regulation Z” (12 C.F.R. 226.33(b)) based on TILA disclosure deficiencies. A month before the scheduled foreclosure sale Naifeh caused several documents to be recorded with the county, purporting to show she owed nothing on the loan. Naifeh was present at the trustee’s sale, distributing notices representing that the trustee knew there were contrary claims to title. No one bid. A Trustee’s Deed was recorded, granting title to BofA. Naifeh continued to record documents. BofA filed suit, seeking cancellation of instruments and quiet title. The trial court held that Naifeh’s notice of rescission was insufficient. Because of a decision subsequently issued by the U.S. Supreme Court, the court of appeal vacated and remanded for adjudication of the rescission defense. A borrower may rescind the loan transaction under TILA without filing suit, but when the rescission is challenged, a court may decide whether the notice was timely and whether the TILA procedure should be modified in light of particular circumstances. View "U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n as Tr. v. Naifeh" on Justia Law

222 plaintiffs, homeowners, in 22 related mass actions against various financial institutions and mortgage loan servicers, appeal from an order dismissing those actions after the trial court sustained without leave to amend defendants' demurrers to an “omnibus” third amended complaint. Each mass action involves numerous plaintiffs whose loans originated with and/or were serviced by a single defendant or related affiliates. The omnibus complaint asserted seven causes of action. On appeal, plaintiffs challenge only the trial court's denial of their request for leave to amend their unfair business practices cause of action (the UCL claim) to add factual allegations to support an entirely different theory that was suggested in seven sentences of the 29-page complaint. The court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint because they failed to show that their proposed additional facts are sufficient to state a UCL claim. Moreover, even if their proposed additional facts were sufficient, they clearly demonstrate that the claim could not be prosecuted as a mass action because the 222 plaintiffs' claims do not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 378. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Aghaji v. Bank of America" on Justia Law

In this action for wrongful foreclosure, the homeowner, Monica Sciarratta, alleged that as a result of a void assignment of her promissory note and deed of trust, the entity that conducted a nonjudicial foreclosure sale on her home had no interest in either the underlying debt or the subject property. In Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp., (62 Cal.4th 919 (2016)), the California Supreme Court held that the homeowner has standing to sue for wrongful foreclosure. However, Yvanova did not address "any of the substantive elements of the wrongful foreclosure tort," and in particular did not address "prejudice . . . as an element of wrongful foreclosure." The issue this case presented was the question of "prejudice" left open in Yvanova: The Court of Appeal found that policy considerations that drove the standing analysis in Yvanova compelled a similar result in this case. "[A] homeowner who has been foreclosed on by one with no right to do so -by those facts alone- sustains prejudice or harm sufficient to constitute a cause of action for wrongful foreclosure. When a non-debtholder forecloses, a homeowner is harmed by losing her home to an entity with no legal right to take it. Therefore under those circumstances, the void assignment is the proximate cause of actual injury and all that is required to be alleged to satisfy the element of prejudice or harm in a wrongful foreclosure cause of action." The opposite rule, urged by defendants in this case, would allow an entity to foreclose with impunity on homes that were worth less than the amount of the debt, even if there were no legal justification whatsoever for the foreclosure. "The potential consequences of wrongfully evicting homeowners are too severe to allow such a result." The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court erroneously sustained a demurrer to Sciarratta's first amended complaint without leave to amend, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Sciarratta v. U.S. Bank" on Justia Law

In 2004, Brown obtained a $450,000 loan secured by a deed of trust recorded against her Oakland property, identifying Washington Mutual as the lender and beneficiary and CRC as the trustee. Washington Mutual failed in 2008. The FDIC was appointed its receiver and sold Chase many of the assets and liabilities (P&A Agreement). In 2011, CRC recorded a notice of default as trustee for Chase, claiming that Brown was in arrears by $60,984.42. Chase then assigned the deed of trust to Deutsche Bank; CRC remained as the trustee and recorded a notice of sale. In 2012, Brown filed the first of three lawsuits challenging the foreclosure. In 2013, CRC executed a third notice of sale. Two days later, Brown filed her third lawsuit, alleging that the assignment to Deutsche Bank was invalid and the foreclosure proceedings were initiated without authority. The trial court granted a request for judicial notice, which covered foreclosure-related documents, filings from the earlier lawsuits, and the P&A Agreement, then dismissed without leave to amend. The court of appeal affirmed. Brown‟s contention that Deutsche Bank and CRC lacked authority to enforce the deed of trust was contradicted by matters subject to judicial notice. View "Brown v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co." on Justia Law

The Danielses obtained a $650,000 adjustable rate loan secured by a deed of trust on their Santa Cruz residence. When their interest rate adjusted upward, they spent years in unsuccessful attempts to obtain a loan modification from their then-loan servicer, Bank of America (BofA). In the process, they fell behind on their loan payments, allegedly at the behest of BofA. They sued BofA and several other entities to prevent a non-judicial foreclosure sale of their home and to collect monetary damages. The trial court dismissed without leave to amend. The court of appeal reversed and remanded, holding that: when a lender acquires by assignment a loan being administered by a loan servicer, the lender may be liable to the borrower for misrepresentations made by the loan servicer, as the lender‟s agent, after that assignment; and, a loan servicer may owe a duty of care to a borrower through application of the “Biakanja” factors, even though its involvement in the loan does not exceed its conventional role. View "Daniels v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff alleged defendants (Bank of America, Wells Fargo Bank, Citibank and the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS)) wrongfully foreclosed on his home. The trial court sustained a demurrer to a third amended complaint and entered a judgment of dismissal. On appeal, plaintiff contended the foreclosure was wrongful because irregularities in the securitization of his mortgage deprived defendants of authority to foreclose, and because the foreclosure occurred while the loan servicer was reviewing his loan for a modification under the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). The Court of Appeal agreed with the latter contention, and reversed as to plaintiff’s cause of action against the loan servicer for violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. (UCL). The Court also reversed some of the orders denying leave to amend. The Court concluded that plaintiff has otherwise stated a cause of action for wrongful foreclosure, provided the party conducting the foreclosure sale was an agent of the loan servicer. Plaintiff should be given leave to amend to allege that agency relationship, if true. Finally, plaintiff has otherwise stated a cause of action for cancellation of the trustee’s deed upon sale, but has failed to join the foreclosing trust deed beneficiary as a defendant. The foreclosing beneficiary, who allegedly purchased the property at the foreclosure sale, was an indispensable party. Provided the property is still owned of record by the foreclosing beneficiary, and not by a bona fide purchaser for value, plaintiff should be given leave to amend to add the foreclosing beneficiary as a party to the cause of action for cancellation of instruments. In all other respects the judgment was affirmed. View "Majd v. Bank of America" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant FirstMerit Bank, N.A. sought to enforce a money judgment against defendant-respondent Diana Reese by applying for an order assigning Reese’s interest in two trusts to FirstMerit and an order restraining her from otherwise disposing of her right to payment under the trusts. The trial court denied the motion. FirstMerit appealed, arguing: (1) Cod Civ. Proc. section 708.510 gave the trial court authority and jurisdiction to order Reese to assign FirstMerit funds she receives from the trusts; (2) section 708.520 gave the court authority to issue an order restraining Reese from transferring her interest in the trusts; and (3) section 709.010 did not affect the court’s authority or jurisdiction to enter such orders. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "FirstMerit Bank v. Reese" on Justia Law