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"].)

No comments:

Post a Comment