Cause of Action for Violation of CCC §§ 2923.52 and / or
2923.53 – There is no private right of action. Vuki v. Superior
Court, 189 Cal. App. 4th 791, 795 (2010).
Share this:
- Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
Related
Author: timothymccandless
The Impact—and Your Opportunity As Our Client left the hearing room, he knew this victory was bigger than just The Crossings. Other property owners facing similar issues could now challenge their assessments with greater confidence. The case set a precedent, demonstrating that robust, market-informed evidence could lead to fair property valuations. It had been a battle, but he had proved that the system could be challenged—and that fairness in taxation was worth fighting for. Could You Be Overpaying on Property Taxes? If you own Large apartment complexes or commercial property, you may be paying far more in property taxes than you should. Just like Our Client, you have the right to challenge an unfair assessment and secure the tax savings you deserve. At Lower Property Tax CA, we specialize in helping property owners like you reduce their tax burden. Our expert consultants and appraisal team will analyze your property’s financials, market conditions, and county assessment methodologies to build a strong case for a reduction.We recognize that every client's tax situation is unique. That's why we take the time to understand your specific needs and tailor our services accordingly. You can count on us to provide personalized attention to your tax matters. View all posts by timothymccandless
Works Rights Compliance Alliance 
HUH?!? CCC Section 2923.52 shall not apply if any of the following occurs:
(a) The borrower has surrendered the property, as evidenced by either a letter confirming the surrender or delivery of the keys to the property to the mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent.
(b) The borrower has contracted with an organization, person, or entity whose primary business is advising people who have decided to leave their homes regarding how to extend the foreclosure process and avoid their contractual obligations to mortgagees or beneficiaries.
(c) A case has been filed by the borrower under Chapter 7, 11, 12, or 13 of Title 11 of the United States Code, and the bankruptcy court has not entered an order closing or dismissing the bankruptcy case or granting relief from a stay of foreclosure.(d) This section
shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2011, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2011, deletes or extends that date.
There is no more 2923.52! But, what if prior to 1/1/11, the borrower neither (a) surrender or deliver of the keys to the property to the mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent, nor (b) contract with an organization, person, or entity whose primary business is advising people who have decided to leave their homes regarding how to extend the foreclosure process and avoid their contractual obligations to mortgagees or beneficiaries (I don’t believe that a licensed real estate agent or broker is described here as a real estate agent or broker (or the company they represent) is not specifically contracted to advise regarding “how to extend the foreclosure process and avoid their contractual obligations to mortgagees or beneficiaries,” nor (c) filed for bankruptcy protection? What is left for such a borrower to do if 2923.52 doesn’t apply?