Thursday, September 18, 2014

Virginia Sues 13 Banks for $1 Billion over Alleged Mortgage Bond Fraud

From Reuters News:

Virginia sues 13 banks for $1 billion over alleged mortgage bond fraud

The state of Virginia said on Tuesday that it sued units of Citigroup Inc, Deutsche Bank AG and 11 other banks, accusing them of defrauding the state's retirement fund by selling it shoddy mortgage bonds in the run-up to the recent financial crisis. . . .

The other banks named in the lawsuit include units of Bank of America Corp, Credit Suisse AG, Goldman Sachs Group Inc, HSBC Holdings plc, Morgan Stanley, and JPMorgan Chase & Co. Representatives of the banks either declined comment or did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 

Read more

The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act

Are you an active Service member with the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps or Coast Guard?   Are you or a dependent facing a foreclosure of your personal residence? Under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) your primary residence cannot be foreclosed upon while you are on active duty. Your home cannot be foreclosed upon even if you were discharged within the last year.

50 U.S.C §501-596 provides that any foreclosure of real property for non-payment of any amount due and is secured by a deed of trust is invalid if conducted while that individual is either in active military service, or within one year after the debtors military service ends. Furthermore if you have been foreclosed upon while an active Servicemember the entity(s)will be exposed to damages including attorney fees and costs under 50 U.S.C. 597a(B) along with possible being guilty of a misdemeanor, under 50 U.S.C. 533(D) which states “A person who knowingly makes or causes to be made a sale, foreclosure, or seizure of property that is prohibited by subsection (c), or who knowingly attempts to do so, shall be fined as provided in title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.”

The Law Offices of Jason W. Estavillo, PC were retained by a Servicemember who ended their active service in August 2013. That individual was facing a foreclosure on June 24, 2014 in Alameda County. We were retained less than a week before the foreclosure sale and were able to stop it two days after being retained.

If you are a Servicemember and are facing a foreclosure or if you have been foreclosed upon we might be able to help you under The Servicememembers Civil Relief Act and other related laws. We are well versed in fighting the banks and have been very successful in stopping foreclosures both under federal and state law.

California Amends Uniform Commercial Code Article 9 Regarding Name of Individual Debtor on Financing Statements




California Amends Uniform Commercial Code Article 9 Regarding Name of Individual Debtor on Financing Statements
Neil J. Rubenstein, Esq.
September 2014

The California Legislature passed, and Governor Brown signed, Assembly Bill No. 1858, which changes the way individual debtors are identified in Uniform Commercial Code financing statements. The bill brings California into line with 40 other states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, which have already enacted similar legislation. It becomes effective January 1, 2015.

Click here to read more.

Thursday, September 11, 2014

Bryan v. US Bank NA


Bryan v. US BANK NAT. ASSN.

Cal: Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate Dist., 5th Div., 2014
... (Mendoza v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1030-1034; Keshtgar
v. US Bank, NA (2014 ... including the investment trust's pooling and servicing agreement, relating to such transactions." (Jenkins, at p. 515; but see Glaski v. Bank of America (2013) 218 ...


IV. DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. U.S. Bank is entitled to its costs on appeal.

Jones, P. J. and Needham, J., concurs.

[3] In his SAC, Bryan also alleged that the assignment to U.S. Bank was void because the Trust closed before the assignment occurred. He abandons this theory in his opening brief and has thereby forfeited any argument that the allegation supports a cause of action. (Davies v. Sallie Mae, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1086, 1096; Christoff v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 118, 125.) In any event, we would conclude that Bryan has no standing to raise this argument. The question is currently pending before our Supreme Court in Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 495, review granted August 29, 2014, S218973. Unless or until our Supreme Court holds otherwise, we agree with the majority of courts that have concluded a borrower lacks standing to object to irregularity in a loan's securitization. (Mendoza v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1030-1034; Keshtgar v. U.S. Bank, N.A. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1201, 1205-1207, petn. for review pending, petn. filed July 28, 2014; Jenkins, supra, 216 Cal.App.4th at p. 515.) "As an unrelated third party to the alleged securitization, and any other subsequent transfers of the beneficial interest under the promissory note, [the borrower] lacks standing to enforce any agreements, including the investment trust's pooling and servicing agreement, relating to such transactions." (Jenkins, at p. 515; but see Glaski v. Bank of America (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1079, 1083 ["[t]ransfers 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"].)