Wednesday, February 26, 2014

DECISIVE VICTORY FOR CALIFORNIA FORECLOSURE FIGHTERS -- GLASKI v. BANK OF AMERICA

Supreme Court of California Case Notification for: S213814

GLASKI v. BANK OF AMERICA
Case: S213814, Supreme Court of California

Date (YYYY-MM-DD):                     2014-02-26

Event Description:                            
Depublication request denied (case closed)

Supreme Court

 

California Supreme Court Refuses to Depublish Glaski Decision

You remember Glaski, in which a California Appeals Court found that borrowers have standing to challenge void assignments of their loans, even if they were not a party to or a beneficiary of the assignment.
In Glaski, the court held that a borrower has standing to challenge an assignment if the defect would void it, but not when it is merely voidable by the assignor. In Glaski, the WaMu Securitized Trust was formed under and governed by New York law, under which a statute provides that every conveyance or other trustee act in contravention of the trust is void. The Glaski court joined other courts in reading the statute literally and held that acceptance of a note and mortgage by the trustee after the date the trust closed would be void. Thus, Glaski stated a claim for wrongful foreclosure by alleging that the transfer was ineffective.
Hence began the banks’ feverish efforts to depublish Glaski.  Why?  Because in many jurisdictions, unpublished authority cannot be cited, and lacks the precedential authority of a published decision.
Today, the California Court declined to depublish Glaski, after receiving reams and reams of briefing on the issue.
Strangely, some of California’s trial courts have refused to follow Glaski, raising the issue of whether they are violating principles of stare decisis.
            

Court data last updated: 02/26/2014 04:05 PM
Disposition
GLASKI v. BANK OF AMERICA
Case Number S213814

Only the following dispositions are displayed below: Orders Denying Petitions, Orders Granting Rehearing and Opinions. Go to the Docket Entries screen for information regarding orders granting review.
Case Citation: none
DateDescription

Docket (Register of Actions)
GLASKI v. BANK OF AMERICA
Case Number S213814

Date Description Notes
10/04/2013 Request for depublication filed (initial case event) Defendant and Respondent: JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.
Attorney: Mikel Allison Glavinovich     (publication order filed on August 8, 2013)
10/04/2013 Case start date (depublication request)    
10/04/2013 Application to appear as counsel pro hac vice (pre-grant)     submitted by Theodore Bacon, counsel for respondent on behalf of Noah Levine.
10/07/2013 Request for depublication filed (another request pending) Pub/Depublication Requestor: Deutsche Bank National Trust Company     Bernard Garbutt, III
10/11/2013 Response in support of depublication request filed  by California Bankers Association and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
10/15/2013 Opposition to depublication request filed     By appellant's counsel Richard L. Antognini.
10/15/2013 Opposition to depublication request filed     By Klapach & Klapach, P.C. By counsel Joseph S. Kalpach.
10/15/2013 Opposition to depublication request filed     by Brenda H. Reed, in pro per.
10/15/2013 Opposition to depublication request filed     By the Law Office of Ronald H. Freshman. By counsel Ronald H. Freshman.
10/15/2013 Opposition to depublication request filed     By Arias, Ozzello & Gignac LLP. By counsel Mark F. Didak.
10/15/2013 Opposition to depublication request filed     By Tia Smith, in pro per.
10/15/2013 Opposition to depublication request filed     By Charles W. Cox.
10/15/2013 Opposition to depublication request filed     By the Law Offices of Joseph L. De Clue. By counsel Joseph L. De Clue.
10/15/2013 Opposition to depublication request filed     By Monica Graham, in pro per.
10/15/2013 Opposition to depublication request filed     Michael T. Pines
10/15/2013 Response in support of depublication request filed     By NDex West, LLC. By counsel Edward A. Treder.
10/15/2013 Opposition to depublication request filed     By Helen E. Cooney Mueller, in pro per.
10/15/2013 Opposition to depublication request filed     By Rumio Sato, in pro per.
10/17/2013 Received:     Amended proof of service of opposition to depublication by Tia Smith, to reflect corrected service on appellant's counsel Richard Antognini.
10/17/2013 Received:     Original proof of service of opposition to request for depublication from appellant's counsel Richard L. Antognini.
10/21/2013 Received:     Amended proof of service of opposition to depublication by Monica Graham, to reflect corrected service on appellant's counsel Richard Antognini.
10/15/2013 Opposition to depublication request filed     Nimal Diunugala, pro per
10/21/2013 Opposition to depublication request filed     Amended proof of service of opposition to depublication by Charles W. Cox, to reflect corrected service on appellant's counsel Richard Antognini.
10/21/2013 Received:     Amended proof of service of opposition to depublication by Brenda H. Reed, to reflect corrected service on appellant's counsel Richard Antognini. By Brenda H. Reed.
10/21/2013 Received:     Amended proof of service of opposition to depublication by Klapach & Klapach, P.C., to reflect corrected service on appellant's counsel Richard Antognini. By counsel Joseph S. Klapach.
10/21/2013 Opposition to depublication request filed     Shelley Erickson, pro per
10/15/2013 Opposition to depublication request filed     Kevin Lawson, pro per
10/15/2013 Opposition to depublication request filed     James Macklin
10/18/2013 Opposition to depublication request filed     Steven H. Lucore
10/15/2013 Opposition to depublication request filed     Rick Ensminger, pro per
10/15/2013 Opposition to depublication request filed     Helen Galope, pro per
10/17/2013 Opposition to depublication request filed     Sharon K. Nettleton, pro per
10/18/2013 Opposition to depublication request filed     Patty Nestle, pro per
10/16/2013 Opposition to depublication request filed     Rick Greer, pro per
10/17/2013 Opposition to depublication request filed     Anita Carr, pro per
02/26/2014 Depublication request denied (case closed)     Kennard and Chin, JJ., were recused and did not participate.

 

3 comments:

  1. May the Lord Bless our hard working forclosure defense attornies and expecially
    Catarina Benitez attorney for Glaski

    ReplyDelete
  2. It was great news to learn that the California Supreme Court did not depublish the Glaski opinion, for if so that would have constituted a rejection, but unfortunately the California Supreme Court refusing to depublish an opinion does not really change anything. The reality is that California State and Federal Courts outside the Fresno District in unison are ignoring Glaski and will continue to do so, because the legal theories underlying the Glaski decision are not well understood by the legal profession and therefore not by the judiciary as you well know, and even in Glaski not well explained.

    ReplyDelete
  3. All I can say is that we already have two cases upon appeal because the same Superior Court Judge refused to follow Glaski.

    ReplyDelete