Tuesday, August 13, 2013

Jenkins v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 497.

Contributed by Deontos:
Our "good friends" at  HW  point out the Jenkins Case as an off handed SLAP as they report on the Glaski Homeowner victory. We must monitor the Banksters actions on both these cases from here on. The final arguments of the Glaski Opinion may yet to be waged in the California Supreme Court either directly or indirectly.

A borrower sued several financial institutions contending that the deed of trust provided by the borrower went into a securitized investment trust where it was pooled with other home loans but without proper compliance with the investment trust pooling and servicing agreement.  The trial court sustained a demurrer and the court of appeal affirmed finding that the borrower was not entitled to declaratory relief on the issue as to whether defendants had the authority to initiate nonjudicial foreclosure because the nonjudicial foreclosure statutes did not authorize a preemptive action by the borrower and did not require that the foreclosing party have an actual beneficial interest in both the promissory note and the deed of trust to commence and execute a nonjudicial foreclosure sale.  
The court found that the borrower was unable to state an actual controversy because it was undisputed that the borrower had a debt owed to somebody which was in arrears with the court concluding that the borrower lacked standing to enforce the investment trust pooling and servicing agreement.  The court also found that Civil Code §2932.5 is inapplicable to deeds of trust and the borrower was unable to plead a causal link between her economic injury, the impending nonjudicial foreclosure and the alleged unfair or unlawful acts.

1 comment:

  1. Every day I learn something new in foreclosure fraud. In My recorded documents I continue to learn more and more about robo signers, suspended notaries being suspended for fraudulent activity at Tiffany & Bosco, P.A. in phoenix, AZ. Since purchase of our home in 2000 up to the present there doesn't seem to be a document in my closing documents that is not fraudulent. Do I have a case to sue?