IntroductionThere is considerable overlap in the foreclosure decisions that appear in this and the previous issue of the Reporter. The holding in Pfeifer v Countrywide (2012) 211 CA4th 1250 (reported in the March issue on p 44) that lenders were required to conduct face-to-face meetings with their borrowers as a precondition to foreclosing their deeds of trust was echoed in Intengan v BAC Home Loans Servicing LP (2013) 214 CA4th 1047 (reported on p 66 of this issue), with the latter decision based on the authority under CC §2923.5 rather than under HUD servicing regulations. Either way, another layer of complexity and time (and risk) has been added onto California’s nonjudicial trustee sale process.Similarly, the question of Chase Bank’s immunity from liability for the torts of Washington Mutual (WAMU) because of the terms of its Purchase and Assumption Agreement with the FDIC, examined in Jolley v Chase Home Fin., LLC (2013) 213 CA4th 872 (reported on p 46 of the March issue), was again taken up in Scott v JPMorgan Chase Bank (2013) 214 CA4th 743 (reported on p 66 of this issue), although with quite different results (to be discussed below).Only West v Chase Bank’s coverage of the question of whether a lender is obliged to offer a loan modification to a borrower who has survived the trial period plan mandated by HAMP could be called original—although, as the opinion itself acknowledges, the issue is far from being a novel one, with a significant Seventh Circuit decision already available for courts to rely on. West v JPMorgan Chase Bank (2013) 214 CA4th 780, reported on p 67 of this issue.
Observations on recent California foreclosure decisions and the consequent uncertainty as to the validity of trustee sales.