Oregon foreclosures stopped by judges’ rulings Yesterday, March 05, 2011, 11:01:45 PM | dinsfla Published: Saturday, March 05, 2011, 7:34 PM     Updated: Saturday, March 05, 2011, 7:47 PM By Brent Hunsberger, The Oregonian The sales of hundreds of foreclosed homes in Oregon have been halted or withdrawn in recent weeks after federal judges repeatedly questioned […] … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

Financial dismantling of the American middle class in 8 charts – Peak debt, credit card addiction withdrawal, banks hoarding cash, financial sector dominance in pay, Federal debt will never be paid off, and struggles of the middle class. Posted by mybudget360 in bailout, banks, corporate power, crooks, debt, economy, income, middle class, recession, wall street 0 Comments The American economy runs on high octane debt.  Debt has been welcomed by m … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

Oregon foreclosures stopped by judges’ rulings Yesterday, March 05, 2011, 11:01:45 PM | dinsfla Published: Saturday, March 05, 2011, 7:34 PM     Updated: Saturday, March 05, 2011, 7:47 PM By Brent Hunsberger, The Oregonian The sales of hundreds of foreclosed homes in Oregon have been halted or withdrawn in recent weeks after federal judges repeatedly questioned […] … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

Securitization Chain-of-Title: the US Bank v. Congress ruling Today, March 06, 2011, 7 hours ago | Adam Levitin Over on Housing Wire, Paul Jackson is crowing that chain-of-title issues in mortgage securitization are overblown because an Alabama state trial court rejected such arguments in a case ironically captioned U.S. Bank v. Congress. But let’s actually consider whether the opinion matters, what the court actually did and did not say, and whe … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

Washington State Sells Out To The Banksters Today, March 06, 2011, 4 hours ago | genesis There is a bill pending before the Washington Legislature that would "reform" foreclosure procedures.  Among the provisions of SB-5275 is: 7 (a) That, for residential real estate property, before the notice of trustee's sale is recorded, transmitted, or served, the trustee shall have proof that the beneficiary (bank) is the owner of the promissory note or obl … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

The Market Ticker – The MERS Edifice Is Being Eaten…. Today, March 06, 2011, 3 hours ago | genesis …. from within: FOR more than a decade, the American real estate market resembled an overstuffed novel, which is to say, it was an engrossing piece of fiction. Yes, and let's never forget how that happened.  Banks made loans they knew people couldn't pay and didn't meet quality standards (now a matter of sworn testimony, not presumption) and sol … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

1
Filed 2/18/11
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
JOSE GOMES,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
D057005
(Super. Ct. No. 37-2009-00090347-CU-OR-CTL)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Steven R. Denton, Judge. Affirmed.
Gersten Law Group and Ehud Gersten for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Severson & Werson, Jan T. Chilton, Philip Barilovits and Jon D. Ives for Defendants and Respondents.
Jose Gomes appeals from a judgment entered following the trial court’s order sustaining, without leave to amend, a demurrer filed by defendants Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (Countrywide); Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS); and ReconTrust Company, N.A. (ReconTrust) (collectively “Defendants”).
2
As we will explain, we conclude that the trial court properly sustained the demurrer without leave to amend.
I
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In February 2004 Gomes borrowed $331,000 from lender KB Home Mortgage Company to finance the purchase of real estate. In connection with that transaction, he executed a promissory note (the Note), which was secured by a deed of trust. The deed of trust identifies KB Home Mortgage Company as the “Lender” and identifies MERS as “acting solely as a nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns,” and states that “MERS is the beneficiary under this Security Instrument.”1
The role of MERS is central to the issues in this appeal. As case law explains, “MERS is a private corporation that administers the MERS System, a national electronic registry that tracks the transfer of ownership interests and servicing rights in mortgage loans. Through the MERS System, MERS becomes the mortgagee of record for participating members through assignment of the members’ interests to MERS. MERS is listed as the grantee in the official records maintained at county register of deeds offices. The lenders retain the promissory notes, as well as the servicing rights to the mortgages. The lenders can then sell these interests to investors without having to record the transaction in the public record. MERS is compensated for its services through fees
1 Similarly, the deed of trust states: “The beneficiary of this Security Instrument is MERS (solely as nominee for Lender and Lender’s successor and assigns) and the successors and assigns of MERS.”
3
charged to participating MERS members.” (Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys. v. Nebraska Dept. of Banking & Fin. (2005) 270 Neb. 529, 530 [704 N.W.2d 784, 785].) “A side effect of the MERS system is that a transfer of an interest in a mortgage loan between two MERS members is unknown to those outside the MERS system.” (Jackson v. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. (Minn. 2009) 770 N.W.2d 487, 491.)
The deed of trust that Gomes signed states that “Borrower [i.e., Gomes] understands and agrees that MERS holds only legal title to the interests granted by Borrower in this Security Instrument, but, if necessary to comply with law or custom, MERS (as nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns) has the right: to exercise any or all of those interests, including, but not limited to, the right to foreclose and sell the Property . . . .”
Gomes defaulted on his loan payments, and he was mailed a notice of default and election to sell — recorded on March 10, 2009 — which initiated a nonjudicial foreclosure process. The notice of default was sent to Gomes by ReconTrust, which identified itself as an agent for MERS. Accompanying the notice of default was a declaration signed by an employee of Countrywide, which apparently was acting as the loan servicer.2
2 The deed of trust states that a loan servicer is the entity that “collects Periodic Payments due under the Note and this Security Instrument and performs other mortgage loan servicing obligations.”
4
In May 2009 Gomes filed a lawsuit against Countrywide, MERS and ReconTrust, alleging several causes of action and attaching as exhibits the deed of trust and the notice of default.
The only causes of action at issue in this appeal are the first and second causes of action, which are asserted against all Defendants.3
The first cause of action is titled “Wrongful Initiation of Foreclosure.” In that cause of action, Gomes states that he “does not know the identity of the Note’s beneficial owner” — as he believes that KB Home Mortgage Company sold it on the secondary mortgage market. He alleges on information and belief that “the person or entity who directed the initiation of the foreclosure process, whether through an agent of MERS or otherwise, was neither the Note’s rightful owner nor acting with the rightful owner’s authority.” In short, the first cause of action alleges, on information and belief, that MERS did not have authority to initiate the foreclosure because the current owner of the Note did not authorize MERS to proceed with the foreclosure. As a remedy, the first cause of action states that Gomes seeks damages in an amount “not less than $25,000.”4
3 The remaining causes of action were for (1) quiet title against Defendants; (2) violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Civ. Code, § 1788.10 et seq.) against Countrywide; (3) violation of Civil Code section 2943, subdivision (b)(1) against Countrywide; and (4) unfair competition against Countrywide and MERS (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200). These causes of action were all disposed of in connection with the demurrer.
4 The complaint’s general prayer for relief also seeks an order rescinding the notice of default, along with other relief, but it is not clear whether those remedies are sought for the first cause of action.
5
The second cause of action seeks declaratory relief on the issue of whether “[Civil Code section 2924, subdivision (a)] allows a borrower, before his or her property is sold, to bring a civil action in order to test whether the person electing to sell the property is, or is duly authorized to so by, the owner of a beneficial interest in it.” Although designated a cause of action for declaratory relief, the second cause of action appears to serve simply as a legal argument in support of the first cause of action. Specifically, the second cause of action alleges that section 2924, subdivision (a) provides the legal authority for Gomes to assert the claim he has made in the first cause of action, namely that MERS lacks the authority to initiate the foreclosure process because it was not authorized to do so by the owner of the Note.
Defendants filed a demurrer. Demurring to the first cause of action, Defendants argued, among other things, that (1) to maintain a cause of action for wrongful foreclosure, Gomes must allege that he is able to tender the full amount due under the loan; (2) California’s nonjudicial foreclosure statute sets forth an exhaustive framework that does not provide for the type of relief that Gomes seeks; (3) the terms of the deed of trust authorize MERS to initiate a foreclosure proceeding; and (4) if Gomes is arguing that “he is entitled to avoid foreclosure until a defendant has produced the note,” such a claim has been uniformly rejected. Demurring to the second cause of action for declaratory relief, Defendants argued that it was “nothing more than a repeat of the legal theory” asserted in the first cause of action and should be rejected on the same basis.
The trial court sustained the demurrer, without leave to amend, and entered judgment in favor of Defendants.
6
II
DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
” ‘On appeal from an order of dismissal after an order sustaining a demurrer, our standard of review is de novo, i.e., we exercise our independent judgment about whether the complaint states a cause of action as a matter of law.’ ” (Los Altos El Granada Investors v. City of Capitola (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 629, 650.) “A judgment of dismissal after a demurrer has been sustained without leave to amend will be affirmed if proper on any grounds stated in the demurrer, whether or not the court acted on that ground.” (Carman v. Alvord (1982) 31 Cal.3d 318, 324.) In reviewing the complaint, “we must assume the truth of all facts properly pleaded by the plaintiffs, as well as those that are judicially noticeable.” (Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City of La Habra (2001) 25 Cal.4th 809, 814.)
Further, “[i]f the court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, as here, we must decide whether there is a reasonable possibility the plaintiff could cure the defect with an amendment. . . . If we find that an amendment could cure the defect, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion and we reverse; if not, no abuse of discretion has occurred. . . . The plaintiff has the burden of proving that an amendment would cure the defect.” (Schifando v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1074, 1081, citations omitted (Schifando).) “[S]uch a showing can be made for the first time to the reviewing court . . . .” (Smith v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 700, 711, citation omitted.)
7
B. The Demurrer Was Properly Sustained
1. Gomes Has Not Identified a Legal Basis for an Action to Determine Whether MERS Has Authority to Initiate a Foreclosure Proceeding
California’s nonjudicial foreclosure scheme is set forth in Civil Code sections 2924 through 2924k, which “provide a comprehensive framework for the regulation of a nonjudicial foreclosure sale pursuant to a power of sale contained in a deed of trust.” (Moeller v. Lien (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 822, 830 (Moeller).) “These provisions cover every aspect of exercise of the power of sale contained in a deed of trust.” (I. E. Associates v. Safeco Title Ins. Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 281, 285.) “The purposes of this comprehensive scheme are threefold: (1) to provide the creditor/beneficiary with a quick, inexpensive and efficient remedy against a defaulting debtor/trustor; (2) to protect the debtor/trustor from wrongful loss of the property; and (3) to ensure that a properly conducted sale is final between the parties and conclusive as to a bona fide purchaser.” (Moeller, at p. 830.) “Because of the exhaustive nature of this scheme, California appellate courts have refused to read any additional requirements into the non-judicial foreclosure statute.” (Lane v. Vitek Real Estate Industries Group (E.D. Cal. 2010) 713 F.Supp.2d 1092, 1098; see also Moeller, at p. 834 [“It would be inconsistent with the comprehensive and exhaustive statutory scheme regulating nonjudicial foreclosures to incorporate another unrelated cure provision into statutory nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings.”].)5
5 Although “California courts have repeatedly allowed parties to pursue additional remedies for misconduct arising out of a nonjudicial foreclosure sale when not
8
By asserting a right to bring a court action to determine whether the owner of the Note has authorized its nominee to initiate the foreclosure process, Gomes is attempting to interject the courts into this comprehensive nonjudicial scheme. As Defendants correctly point out, Gomes has identified no legal authority for such a lawsuit. Nothing in the statutory provisions establishing the nonjudicial foreclosure process suggests that such a judicial proceeding is permitted or contemplated.
In his declaratory relief cause of action, Gomes sets forth the purported legal authority for his first cause of action, alleging that Civil Code section 2924, subdivision (a), by “necessary implication,” allows for an action to test whether the person initiating the foreclosure has the authority to do so. We reject this argument. Section 2924, subdivision (a)(1) states that a “trustee, mortgagee, or beneficiary, or any of their authorized agents” may initiate the foreclosure process. However, nowhere does the statute provide for a judicial action to determine whether the person initiating the foreclosure process is indeed authorized, and we see no ground for implying such an action. (See Lu v. Hawaiian Gardens Casino, Inc. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 592, 596 [legislative intent, if any, to create a private cause of action is revealed through the language of the statute and its legislative history].) Significantly, “[n]onjudicial foreclosure is less expensive and more quickly concluded than judicial foreclosure, since there is no
inconsistent with the policies behind the statutes” (California Golf, L.L.C. v. Cooper (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1053, 1070), Gomes is not seeking a remedy for misconduct. He is seeking to impose the additional requirement that MERS demonstrate in court that it is authorized to initiate a foreclosure. As we will explain, such a requirement would be inconsistent with the policy behind nonjudicial foreclosure of providing a quick, inexpensive and efficient remedy. (See Moeller, supra, 25 Cal.App.4th at p. 830.)
9
oversight by a court, ‘[n]either appraisal nor judicial determination of fair value is required,’ and the debtor has no postsale right of redemption.” (Alliance Mortgage Co. v. Rothwell (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1226, 1236.) The recognition of the right to bring a lawsuit to determine a nominee’s authorization to proceed with foreclosure on behalf of the noteholder would fundamentally undermine the nonjudicial nature of the process and introduce the possibility of lawsuits filed solely for the purpose of delaying valid foreclosures.
Gomes cites three federal district court cases — two of which are unpublished —which he says recognize a right to bring a legal challenge to an entity’s authority to initiate a foreclosure process. (Weingartner v. Chase Home Finance, LLC (D. Nev. 2010) 702 F.Supp.2d 1276 (Weingartner); Castro v. Executive Trustee Services, LLC (D. Ariz. 2009, Feb. 23, 2009, No. CV-08-2156-PHX-LOA) 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 14134 (Castro); Ohlendorf v. Am. Home Mortgage Servicing (E.D. Cal. 2010, Mar. 31, 2010, No. CIV. S-09-2081 LKK/EFB) 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 31098 (Ohlendorf).)6 The cases are not controlling on us and, in any event, they are not on point, as none recognize a cause of action requiring the noteholder’s nominee to prove its authority to initiate a foreclosure proceeding. For instance, in Ohlendorf, the plaintiff alleged wrongful foreclosure on the ground that assignments of the deed of trust had been improperly
6 “Although we may not rely on unpublished California cases, the California Rules of Court do not prohibit citation to unpublished federal cases, which may properly be cited as persuasive, although not binding, authority.” (Landmark Screens, LLC v. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 238, 251, fn. 6, citing Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1115.)
10
backdated, and thus the wrong party had initiated the foreclosure process. (Ohlendorf, supra, 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis at *22-23.) No such infirmity is alleged here. Moreover, the district court cases from outside of California are inapposite because they do not apply California nonjudicial foreclosure law. The court in Weingartner, supra, 702 F.Supp.2d 1276, 1282-1283, allowed a plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief to proceed when he produced evidence that the trustee that initiated the foreclosure was not in fact the trustee at the time and thus could not proceed under Nevada law. In Castro, supra, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 14134, the court allowed a claim for declaratory relief to proceed to determine whether the defendants were entitled to enforce a promissory note through nonjudicial foreclosure when the documents before the court indicated that the entities initiating the foreclosure process may not have had the rights of the holder of the note as required by Arizona law. (Id. at *15-16.) It is also significant that in each of these cases, the plaintiff’s complaint identified a specific factual basis for alleging that the foreclosure was not initiated by the correct party. Gomes has not asserted any factual basis to suspect that MERS lacks authority to proceed with the foreclosure. He simply seeks the right to bring a lawsuit to find out whether MERS has such authority. No case law or statute authorizes such a speculative suit.7
7 As we understand Gomes’s first and second causes of action, he is alleging that MERS might not have been authorized by the current holder of the Note to initiate foreclosure proceedings, and he is entitled to bring a lawsuit to determine whether MERS was in fact authorized. Although we focus on this legal theory in addressing whether the demurrer was properly sustained, we note that certain portions of Gomes’s appellate briefing suggest he may be arguing that even if MERS was authorized by the noteholder to initiate a foreclosure, MERS would not have standing to do so. For example, Gomes
11
Gomes appears to acknowledge that California’s nonjudicial foreclosure law does not provide for the filing of a lawsuit to determine whether MERS has been authorized by the holder of the Note to initiate a foreclosure. He argues, however, that we should nevertheless interpret the statute to provide for such a right because the “Legislature may not have contemplated or had time to fully respond to the present situation.” That argument should be addressed in the first instance to the Legislature, not the courts. Because California’s nonjudicial foreclosure statute is unambiguously silent on any right to bring the type of action identified by Gomes, there is no basis for the courts to create such a right. We therefore conclude that the trial court properly sustained Defendants’ demurrer to the first and second causes of action in Gomes’s complaint.8
cites a Kansas case holding that MERS did not have standing to intervene in a judicial foreclosure case. (Landmark Nat’l Bank v. Kesler (Kan. 2009) 216 P.3d 158, 166.) Gomes also contends that other out-of-state cases have found that “MERS’ limited role means it lacks independent standing to foreclose, or independent power to convey standing by transferring a note.” If, by citing these cases, Gomes means to argue that MERS lacks standing in California to initiate a nonjudicial foreclosure, the argument is without merit because under California law MERS may initiate a foreclosure as the nominee, or agent, of the noteholder. As we have explained, Civil Code section 2924, subdivision (a)(1) states that a “trustee, mortgagee, or beneficiary, or any of their authorized agents” may initiate the foreclosure process. (Italics added.)
8 As we sustain the demurrer on another ground, we need not and do not consider whether, as the trial court ruled, the first cause of action fails on the ground that Gomes has not pled that he is prepared to tender the amount owing on the Note. (See Arnolds Management Corp. v. Eischen (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 575, 578 (“It is settled that an action to set aside a trustee’s sale for irregularities in sale notice or procedure should be accompanied by an offer to pay the full amount of the debt for which the property was security.”].)
12
2. Gomes Agreed in the Deed of Trust That MERS Is Authorized to Initiate a Foreclosure Proceeding
As an independent ground for affirming the order sustaining the demurrer, we conclude that even if there was a legal basis for an action to determine whether MERS has authority to initiate a foreclosure proceeding, the deed of trust — which Gomes has attached to his complaint — establishes as a factual matter that his claims lack merit. As stated in the deed of trust, Gomes agreed by executing that document that MERS has the authority to initiate a foreclosure. Specifically, Gomes agreed that “MERS (as nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns) has . . . the right to foreclose and sell the Property.” The deed of trust contains no suggestion that the lender or its successors and assigns must provide Gomes with assurances that MERS is authorized to proceed with a foreclosure at the time it is initiated.9 Gomes’s agreement that MERS has the authority to
9 The parties debate in their briefing whether MERS should be considered a “beneficiary” of the deed of trust and thus authorized to initiate a foreclosure proceeding, regardless of whether it is authorized by the holder of the note, under the statutory provision stating that the beneficiary is entitled to initiate a foreclosure. (Civ. Code, § 2924, subd. (a)(1).) As the parties discuss, some federal district courts have observed that although identified as a “beneficiary” in a deed of trust, the role of MERS is not acting as a beneficiary as that term is commonly used, and that MERS in fact acts as a nominee, and thus an agent of the beneficiary. (See, e.g., Roybal v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (D. Nev., Dec. 9, 2010, No. 2:10-CV-750-ECR-PAL) 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 131287, *11 [“there is a near consensus among district courts in this circuit that while MERS does not have standing to foreclose as a beneficiary, because it is not one, it does have standing as an agent of the beneficiary where it is the nominee of the lender, who is the true beneficiary”]; Weingartner, supra, 702 F.Supp.2d at p. 1280 [“Calling MERS a ‘beneficiary’ is both incorrect and unnecessary . . . ,” and “[c]ourts often hold that MERS does not have standing as a beneficiary because it is not one, regardless of what a deed of trust says, but that it does have standing as an agent of the beneficiary where it is the nominee of the lender (who is the ‘true’ beneficiary).”].) However, because Civil Code section 2924, subdivision (a)(1) and the deed of trust permit MERS to initiate foreclosure
13
foreclose thus precludes him from pursuing a cause of action premised on the allegation that MERS does not have the authority to do so.
Relying on the terms of the applicable deeds of trust, courts have rejected similar challenges to MERS’s authority to foreclose. In Pantoja v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2009) 640 F.Supp.2d 1177, the federal district court pointed out that in the deed of trust, the plaintiff “distinctly granted MERS the right to foreclose through the power of sale provision, giving MERS the right to conduct the foreclosure process under [Civil Code s]ection 2924,” and therefore “[s]ince Plaintiff granted MERS the right to foreclose in his contract, his argument that MERS cannot initiate foreclosure proceedings is meritless.” (Id. at pp. 1189, 1190.) Similarly, another court pointed out that “[u]nder the mortgage contract, MERS has the legal right to foreclose on the debtor’s property. . . . MERS is the owner and holder of the note as nominee for the lender, and thus MERS can enforce the note on the lender’s behalf.” (Morgera v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (E.D. Cal., Jan. 11, 2010, No. 2:09-cv-01476-MCE-GGH) 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 2037, *22, citation omitted.) Following this same approach, we conclude that Gomes’s first and second causes of action lack merit for the independent reason that by entering into the deed of trust, Gomes agreed that MERS had the authority to initiate a foreclosure.
as a nominee (i.e., agent) of the noteholder, we need not, and do not, decide whether MERS is also a “beneficiary” as that term is used in California’s nonjudicial foreclosure statute.
14
3. Gomes Has Not Established That He Can Cure the Defects in His Complaint by Amending
We must also consider whether Gomes has shown that there is a reasonable probability that he could cure the defects that we have identified in the first and second causes of action. (Schifando, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 1081.) Gomes contends that he could amend his complaint to “plead more specific theories . . . on information and belief” such as those theories discussed in Ohlendorf, supra, 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 31098, and Weingartner, supra, 702 F.Supp.2d 1276.
To attempt to state a claim as in Ohlendorf, Gomes would have to plead that the specific party who initiated the foreclosure process was not the proper party to do so because assignments of the deed of trust were improperly backdated. (Ohlendorf, supra, 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 31098 at *22-23.) To conform to the theory pled in Weingartner, Gomes would have to plead that a trustee initiated the foreclosure proceeding but was not actually the trustee at the time. (Weingartner, supra, 702 F.Supp.2d at p. 1282.) However, Gomes has conceded that he cannot plead facts meeting those scenarios “because respondents have not recorded any assignments” or provided any descriptions of assignments. A ” ‘[p]laintiff may allege on information and belief any matters that are not within his personal knowledge, if he has information leading him to believe that the allegations are true’ ” (Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 550, italics added), and thus a pleading made on information and belief is insufficient if it “merely assert[s] the facts so alleged without alleging such information that ‘lead[s] [the plaintiff] to believe that the allegations are true.’ ” (Id. at p. 551, fn. 5.) Because Gomes has
15
conceded that he has no specific information about assignments of the Note, he would not be able to plead on information and belief, based on facts leading him to believe they were true, the theories alleged in Ohlendorf and Weingartner. We therefore conclude that the trial court properly sustained the demurrer without leave to amend.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
IRION, J.
WE CONCUR:
NARES, Acting P. J.
MCINTYRE, J.

MERS Can Foreclose in California, State Appeals Court Rules

February 23, 2011, 4:42 PM EST

More From Businessweek

• BofA, Citigroup, PNC Say MERS Mortgage Database Draws Probes
• Harbinger, Solus Make Rival Bid Against Dish for DBSD
• Hedge Fund Manager Will Pay $14 Million to Settle SEC Suit
• Blockbuster Sale Attacked by Disney, Universal, Landlords
• Citibank Agrees to Withdraw From MBIA Restructuring Suits

Story Tools

• e-mail this story
• print this story
• add to Business Exchange

By Thom Weidlich

(Updates with Coakley spokeswoman’s comment in ninth paragraph.)

Feb. 23 (Bloomberg) — Merscorp Inc., operator of the electronic-registration system that contains about half of all U.S. home mortgages, has the right to foreclose on defaulted borrowers in California, a state appeals court ruled.

U.S. courts have differed in recent years on whether Merscorp’s Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, or MERS, unit has the right to bring a foreclosure action.

“Under California law MERS may initiate a foreclosure as the nominee, or agent, of the noteholder,” California Court of Appeal Justice Joan K. Irion in San Diego wrote in a Feb. 18 ruling.

Merscorp, based in Reston, Virginia, and owned by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, JPMorgan Chase & Co. and other mortgage- industry companies, said in a Feb. 16 announcement that it will propose a rule change to stop members from foreclosing in its name.

“It’s incorrect,” Ehud Gersten, the San Diego lawyer who brought the suit on behalf of the borrower, Jose Gomes, said of the ruling in a phone interview today. “I disagree with it completely.”

Gersten said he will appeal the decision.

Flood of Transfers

Merscorp was created in 1995 to improve servicing after county offices couldn’t deal with the flood of mortgage transfers, Karmela Lejarde, a MERS spokeswoman, said in an interview last year. MERS tracks servicing rights and ownership interests in mortgage loans on its electronic registry, allowing banks to buy and sell the loans without having to record the transfer with the county.

“The California decision validates the MERS process and procedures that we’ve used in nonjudicial states for many years,” Lejarde said in a statement today, referring to states such as California that don’t require court intervention to conduct foreclosures.

John L. O’Brien, the register of deeds for the southern part of Massachusetts’s Essex County, said in a statement yesterday that MERS has cost his district $22 million in recording fees, based on 148,663 MERS mortgages since 1998. O’Brien said he would forward that information to state Attorney General Martha Coakley. Coakley is investigating MERS, according to the Boston Globe in December. Amie Breton, a spokeswoman for Coakley, declined to comment.

Upheld Ruling

The California appeals court upheld a ruling that went against Gomes, who sued in 2009 to have the court declare that MERS couldn’t foreclose because the noteholder didn’t authorize it to. Gomes borrowed $331,000 in 2004 and was sent a notice of default in 2009, according to Irion’s decision.

The court, which heard arguments on the Gomes case the same day it released its decision, said that under the state’s “nonjudicial scheme” Gomes can’t bring such a lawsuit.

“Nowhere does the statute provide for a judicial action to determine whether the person initiating the foreclosure process is indeed authorized, and we see no ground for implying such an action,” wrote Irion, who was joined in her decision by the two other judges on the panel.

Asking MERS to demonstrate it has the right to foreclose “would be inconsistent with the policy behind nonjudicial foreclosure of providing a quick, inexpensive and efficient remedy” and would allow lawsuits to delay foreclosures, the judge wrote.

‘Speculative Suit’

Gomes didn’t allege any facts to suggest MERS lacked the right to foreclose, Irion said, calling his case “a speculative suit.” The state legislature would have to act to allow such litigation, she said.

Gomes also agreed, by signing the deed of trust securing the promissory note for the loan, that MERS had the authority to foreclose, the court said.

“Essentially, the Court of Appeal is saying that once somebody starts to foreclose,” borrowers “can’t seek any right from or question that person,” Gersten said in the interview. “The beneficiary under the deed of trust can authorize MERS to foreclose but they never did that. We don’t know who the beneficiary is.”

On Feb. 15, the appeals court ruled for MERS in a similar case brought by borrower Nancy G. Jimenez. Gersten, who also represents Jimenez, said he will appeal that decision.

MERS members have moved away from closing in MERS’s name because of confusion over its standing, Christopher L. Peterson, a law professor at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City who has written several articles on MERS, said in an interview last week.

‘Created Confusion’

MERS halted foreclosures in its name in Florida in 2006, according to rules on its website. Violation of the rule, which remains in effect, costs $10,000. Former Merscorp Chief Executive Officer R.K. Arnold said in a September 2009 deposition in an Alabama foreclosure case that MERS made that change because of a Florida court decision that “created confusion about whether we could” foreclose.

Merscorp announced Arnold’s retirement on Jan. 22.

The case is Gomes v. Countrywide Home Loans Inc., D057005, California Court of Appeal (San Diego).

 

COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION SEARCH, REPORT, ANALYSIS ON LUMINAQ NOT QUITE THAT SIMPLE EDITOR'S NOTE: The assumption is that if MERS is screwed we are all saved. I have it on incontrovertible authority that the mega banks already have a plan mapped out for that and in fact they are already putting it into action. Considering their success in kicking the can down the road so far, any singing and dancing should be muted. You see they don't have t … Read More

via Livinglies's Weblog

The Bizarre Mortgage “Settlement” Negotiations Today, March 04, 2011, 3 hours ago | Yves Smith We are getting only odd tidbits out of the so-called settlement negotiations among the fifty state attorneys general, various Federal banking regulators, and mortgage servicing miscreants (meaning all of them). As Matt Stoller pointed out last weekend, the lack of transparency is troubling. Nevertheless, certain things are apparent. 1. There has not bee … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

Homeowner Suffers Horrific Injustice at the Hands of JPMorgan Chase Today, March 04, 2011, 2 hours ago | Foreclosure Fraud Repost from Mandelman Matters Homeowner Suffers Horrific Injustice at the Hands of JPMorgan Chase For over two years I’ve had a front row seat for the foreclosure crisis, the by-product of our government’s complete mishandling of the worst economic downturn in seventy years. During that time I’ve been exposed to some pretty h … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

Daily Finance | What Do HSBC’s Foreclosure Moratorium and Robo-Signing Claims Really Mean? Today, March 04, 2011, 2 hours ago | Foreclosure Fraud Some excellent investigative journalism in this one… The author tracks down some HSBC robo-signed cases featuring Cheryl Samons and Xee Moua… Keep up the great work Abigail! What Do HSBC’s Foreclosure Moratorium and Robo-Signing Claims Really Mean? By ABIGAIL FIELD In HSBC’s 2010 annual report, the bank … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

 

What lawyers who represent lenders and loan servicers really think about your attempt to fight to save your home from foreclosure.

Here is a recent email exchange I had with one of the large lender/loan servicers in regard to asserting my Client’s Truth in Lending rescission rights.

This email allows you to get a little flavor of what the big bad bailed out banks think about helping other people who need a bailout.

HERE WAS HIS EMAIL QUESTION TO ME:

It is a mystery to me why lawyers get involved with clients simply to delay the inevitable.  The only reason I’ve been able to fathom is that the lawyer gets paid instead of the bank, while the borrower continues to live in the house.  Doesn’t seem like a good way to keep one’s malpractice insurance premiums down.

I’m not suggesting that is what you’re doing here.  However, XXXXXXX must protect itself and the loan owner from such pointless shenanigans.

I’m not aware of a new date for the foreclosure sale, but this doesn’t mean that one hasn’t been set……

NOTICE HOW HE SEEMS INTENT ON LECTURING ME ABOUT MY MALPRACTICE INSURANCE AND ASSUMING EVERYTHING IS INEVITABLE.  IN HIS WORLD, THERE IS NO TAKING ON THE BANKS, NO QUESTIONING THE BANKS, NO DEFIANCE THAT WILL BE TOLERATED BY THE BANKS, THEY GOT THEIR MODIFICATION BUT HOW DARE YOU TRY TO ASSERT YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS, ESPECIALLY WHERE VALID TRUTH IN LENDING RESCISION RIGHTS WERE PRESENTED AS PROOF TO THIS GUY.  HERE IS MY RESPONSE TO THE GENTLEMAN.

XXXXXXXX,

 

I can appreciate your position here are a few mysteries I am looking for answers to:

(1) Why when banks get bailed out big time, do they act like no homeowner deserves a decent bailout?

(2) Why in all of my cases where I find a bona fide Truth in Lending (“TILA”) violation, does the lender always either (a) deny that the violation exists in the face of attached documentary evidence, or (b) refuse to even respond to a TILA rescission letter?

(3) Why do lenders/loan servicers routinely fail to address the question of who actually owns the loan? Or provide proof of such?

(4) Why do loan servicers routinely fail to respond, or fail to respond in a timely manner, to legitimate qualified written requests under RESPA?

(5) Why are lenders refusing to do short-sales at or near fair market values only to find that they get less at a foreclosure sale?

(6) Why are lenders/loan servicers routinely making blatantly false declarations under California Civil Code Section 2923.5?

(7) Why is California Civil code section 2923.6 routinely violated?

(8) Why do “lenders” continue to try to collect payments where the loan in question was already paid off via insurance, bailout money etc.?

(9) Why is it that MERS continues to try to pretend it is a beneficiary and foreclose on people?

(10) Why is it so many substitutions of trustee are invalid and the resulting Notice of Default invalid and not in compliance with California Foreclosure Laws?

(11) Why is it that other lawyers who represent banks (who are making out pretty nicely for their efforts) complaining about other lawyers who are fighting for Clients who want to keep their houses and exercise legal rights that they clearly have?

(12) Why won’t attorneys for lenders/investors be honest about sale dates?  Is there truly something to hide or is it a total lack of respect for attorneys who represent deadbeat homeowners?

As a lawyer, I am sure you are aware there are two sides of the coin here.  It is not a black and white issue.  Can you send me proof of who the owner of this loan is in the form of an indorsed promissory note that your client is in possession of?  I have not seen any proof.  Seriously, do not fault us for fighting for the rights of homeowners who are often facing severe financial hardship (usually for reasons out of their control – like a bogus economy), and who are fighting to keep a roof over their head, and using the legal rights the law affords them to fight the system that was setup to defeat them.

To your malpractice claim assertion, it is malpractice NOT to identify, stand-up and assert my Client’s legal rights – whatever you may think of them.

If you do not want to be straight up and inform us of the new sale date, and if foreclosure is inevitable, why not just tell me there is nothing that is going to be done, and the sale will occur whenever your Client feels like it.  I can live with that if you want to be honest.  If that is the truth let’s talk honestly about it.  I can handle the truth!

(parts omitted due to client confidentiality)

You are a beneficiary of this system partially created by your Clients, so I would not be flabbergasted by what you are dealing with.

This is a typical day in the life of dealing with big banks and fighting for our clients using every law that we can think of that may help in the fight to save a home from foreclosure.

Going hand in hand with this article, here is another post we posted discussing other reasons we work so hard to battle these banks:

Phoenix Foreclosure Defense Attorney strives to put the “TRUTH” back in Lending!

Some people have asked me, why are you passionate about foreclosure defense and helping Arizona homeowners? One of the answers I like to give is the following:

OUR MISSION: “WE ARE FIGHTING FOR “TRUTH IN LENDING” (a strange concept, i know!):

(1) WE ARE FIGHTING FOR TRUE AND ACCURATE DISCLOSURE OF A LOAN PRODUCT, ITS NATURE, AND TERMS (TELL PEOPLE THE TRUTH ABOUT THE LOANS THEY ARE LOCKING INTO). GIVE THEM THE CHARMS BOOKLET AND CALIFORNIA ARM DISCLOSURES

(2) WE ARE FIGHTING FOR TRUE AND FAIR DISCLOSURE OF THE PRICE-TAG FOR THE LOAN (APR AND FINANCE CHARGES THAT ARE TRUE AND ACCURATE). ACCURATE TRUTH IN LENDING STATEMENTS

(3) WE ARE FIGHTING FOR FAIR AND ACCURATE DISCLOSURE OF THE RIGHT TO CANCEL THE LOAN WHEN APPLICABLE (GIVE PEOPLE THEIR REQUIRED COPIES AND GIVE TRUE DATES UPON WHICH LOANS CAN BE RESCINDED)

(4) WE ARE FIGHITNG FOR FAIR AND HONEST UNDERWRITING THAT IS BASED UPON A CLIENTS TRUE ABILITY TO REPAY A LOAN (WHICH MAY MEAN VERIFYING INCOME AND TELLING SOME PEOPLE THEY DON’T QUALIFY) AND TRUE AND ACURATE APPRAISAL OF PROPERTY THAT SUPPORTS THE UNDERWRITING.

(5) WE ARE FIGHTING FOR FULL DISLCOSURE OF THE HOLDER OF THE LOAN (INVESTOR) AND PROOF AS TO WHO OWNS THE RIGHT TO BE PAID, AND THE RIGHT TO FORECLOSE, AND WHO MUST BY LAW CONTACT CALIFORNIA HOMEOWNERS TO DISCUSS LOAN MODIFICATIONS AND ASSESS BORROWER FINANCES.

(6) WE ARE FIGHTING FOR FULLFULL AND FAIR ACCOUNTING FOR PAYMENTS, LATE FEES, ESCROW CHARGES, AND OTHER CHARGES IN THE LOAN SERVICER’S BACK-ROOM. ANSWER THOSE QWR’S ON TIME, AND IN UNDERSTANDABLE DETAIL. STOP REPORTING NEGATIVE CREDIT DURING THIS PERIOD.

(7) WE ARE FIGHTING FOR HONESTY AND “TRUTH IN TRIAL PLANS” – IF HOMEOWNERS DON’T QUALIFY FOR A MORTGAGE RESTRUCTING / LOAN MODIFICATION, DON’T SEND THEM A TRIAL PLAN THAT LEADS THEM TO BELEIVE THEY DO. IN ADDITION, BE TRUTHFUL ABOUT THE PRECISE TERMS OF THE LOAN MODFIICATIONS (DISCLOSE THE TERMS CLEARLY) AND HONOR YOUR TRIAL PLAN AGREEMENTS.

ITS TIME THE LENDERS OPEN THE BOOKS AND SHOW US WHERE THE BAIL-OUT MONEY HAS GONE. WE NEED SOME TRANSPARENCY. WE NEED SOME ACCOUNTABILITY TO SHOW WHAT HAS BEEN DONE WITH TAX-PAYER MONEY. WAS YOUR LOAN ALREADY PAID OFF VIA THE BAILOUT, AND NOW THEY WANT TO COLLECT MORE MONEY FROM YOU FROM A LOAN THAT MAY HAVE BEEN ALREADY PAID? IF YOUR LOAN WAS SECURITIZED INTO A “LOAN POOL” IS THERE ANY CHANCE YOUR ENTIRE POOL OF LOAN WAS BAILED OUT AND PAID OFF? IF SO, DOES THAT MEAN THEY STILL GET TO COLLECT FROM YOU AS WELL? WHAT IS THAT? ISN’T THAT A WINDFALL……..UNJUST ENRICHMENT?

PEOPLE DESERVE TO BE REPRESENTED BY A FORECLOSURE DEFENSE LAWYER WHEN TRYING TO RESOLVE ONE OF BIGGEST PROBLEMS MOST HOMEOWNERS WILL EVER FACE. IN MANY CASES, A FORECLOSURE DEFENSE LAWYER CAN EVALUATE YOUR LOAN, REVIEW YOUR MORTGAGE DOCUMENTS (FORENSIC AUDIT), DEMAND THAT DEBTS BE VALIDATED, SEND MODIFICATION PROPOSALS, REVIEW TRIAL PLAN AND OTHER LOAN MODFICATION AGREEMENTS, ADVISE ON DEFICIENCY JUDGMENTS, DISCUSS POTENTIAL BANKRUPTCY AND SHORT-SALE OPTIONS, AND ENSURE THAT YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE FORECLOSURE LAWS ARE ADHERED TO AND PROTECTED. THE BANKS HAVE EXPENSIVE LAWYERS ON THEIR TIME, YOU DESERVE TO BE REPRESENTED DURING THIS CONFUSING AND STRESSFUL ORDEAL. THIS IS THEIR GAME AND THEIR BATTLEFIELD.

IF YOU ARE AN ARIZONA HOMEOWNER PLEASE CONTACT US (877) 276-5084 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              (877) 276-5084      end_of_the_skype_highlighting TO DISCUSS YOUR FORECLOSURE OR BANKRUPTCY CASE.

Good input from Neil Garfield:

MY ANSWER TO A QUESTION RECENTLY RECEIVED

1. The matter at hand is not legal, it is political. Your strategy must be to force the Judge into a corner and give him a way out that applies only to this case. There are 80 million mortgages that could be effected by a broad ruling in favor of a borrower or against MERS. If you read my recent articles you will see what I perceive to be the problem. I have no doubt that we are right on the law “on all four corners” — but that has been the case from the beginning. Your strategy and tactics must be courageous and push the Judge into the corner with a court reporter taking down every word. Remind the court reporter that under law, she works for you and NOT the Judge, so unless YOU tell her stop taking things down, she is to continue regardless of instruction from the bench.

2. I don’t think any negative case is legally a problem because your legislature sucks when it comes to writing legislation. I’ll analyze Vawter if you want me to, but it is distinguishable on several grounds. It will be easy to characterize the Washington statute, taken together with other sections as unique or at least unusual (even if it really isn’t) and then find ways to distinguish your case from others (even if it a distinction without a difference). The strategy should be to get the Judge to agree with you on SOMETHING that is a lynchpin of your case and work it from there. This isn’t about all cases, it is about this case.

3. MERS information is coming out daily. You ALWAYS have the option of introducing new evidence that was unavailable at the time of the last motion when it comes to MERS. Remember that JPMorgan Chase abandoned MERS for the same reasons we attack it. They did that in 2009. They are a party in your case.

4. The line that I am encouraging lawyers to use now is that a pretender who could not normally plead much less prove a regular judicial foreclosure case should not otherwise be allowed to prevail just because the court doesn’t have time to hear the case on the merits. That seemed to change the minds of even some tough judges. You might want to try it.

5. If the above statement is true, then it is necessary to make sure the parties are aligned properly. Do some research on this and you’ll find it is a very powerful procedural tool. Simply stated, the alignment of parties MUST be that the party seeking affirmative relief is the Plaintiff and must plead a full case with sufficient facts and exhibits such that relief could be granted of all the allegations and exhibits were true. That party is always the pretender in a foreclosure action. The fact that the rules require the borrower to “speak up” do not change the basic rules of due process and civil procedure. If the borrower denies the default, the authenticity of the documents, or otherwise denies the standing of the pretender, then the judicial foreclosure is over even if we stay in the same venue. At that point, the pretender must plead and prove  their case. The only burden on the borrower is a denial, which if not made in good faith subjects the borrower and attorney  to various sanctions.

6. If the above statement were untrue, then we would see the confusion that is now apparent in Washington State— the borrower is required to anticipate the case of the pretender, plead it, deny it and then accept the burden of proof of proving the borrower’s denial when the other side has not filed any pleading and the facts showing the failure of the pretender to have the ability to win on the merits are uniquely in the hands of the pretender, who won’t give it up despite Federal Law (TILA and RESPA).

7. A direct appeal under original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court of your state in mandamus on this issue is appropriate and I believe likely to succeed if placed in the hands of a competent appellate attorney.

8. The cases that are being decided either at trial level or the appellate level, are mostly picking at hairs. The simple question is whether the pretender can avoid pleading untrue facts and thus avoid the requirements of proving facts that only the creditor could plead and prove. If the answer is that the pretender wins, then the floodgates they are so worried about will really open because it gives any speculator a chance to set aside a previous foreclosure or to foreclose on any property that appears to be in default. There is already a popular scam across the country in which non-owners rent out the house as long as they can — many times for years. This is only possible because of the moral hazard introduced by the reticence of courts to apply black letter law that has existed for centuries and which is necessary to maintain an orderly society with certainty in the marketplace that the rights clearly set forth in the contracts, laws, rules, regulations and common law precedent will be applied in a consistent manner.

9. An example is the notice of default. Under the PSA the servicer is required to keep paying the creditor even if the borrower stops. There is no default. There is potentially a claim by the servicer against the homeowner for unjust enrichment but it certainly isn’t secured.

10. WAIVER: You can’t waive fraud. Every one of these loan closings was conducted under false pretenses with the real party advancing funds absent from the table (hence the term “Table funded loan, because the name of the lender is not present). The documentation thus refers to a  transaction that never occurred. Beyond that, the lender received an entirely different package of documents with terms and parties completely unknown and undisclosed to the borrower. The borrower and the lender never appear on the same document. Hence the documentation refers to a transaction that did NOT occur and the transaction that DID occur in which money was loaned to the borrower, is without documentation of any kind — i.e., documentation in which the borrower and lender agree to the same terms and conditions. The reference to the promissory note is a fraud.

11. SINGLE TRANSACTION RULE, STEP TRANSACTION DOCTRINE: The lender would never have accepted the deal were it not for the documentation the lender received (the bogus mortgage backed securities with the infamous AAA ratings based in part on the infamous fraudulently inflated property appraisals, relied upon by both lender and borrower). The borrower would never have accepted a deal wherein the real value of the property was considerably less than the principal due on the loan. Any reading of any chain of securitization documents can arrive at only one conclusion — there was no liability intended to accrue in favor of the lender or investor nor any recourse except in the unlikely even some money was received by a sub-servicer (serving at the will of the Master Servicer whose existence is hidden from both homeowner and investor). The bogus “bond” received by the lender was never signed by the borrower and unknown to most borrowers even today. THIS IS WHY YOU MUST CONCENTRATE ON THE SINGLE TRANSACTION DOCTRINE USED IN TAX LAW AND OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE FRAUD IS ALLEGED OR AT LEAST INFERRED. If you allow yourself to be drawn into a fight over the hairs of an individual document that neither the borrower nor the lender signed or even knew about, you are falling into the rabbit hole.

	Single Family Homes			Condominiums			SFR Only
Community Name	ZIP Code	Sales of Single Family Homes	Price Median SFR ($1,000)	Price % Chg from Jan 2010	Sales Count Condos	Price Median Condos ($1,000)	Price % Chg from Jan 2010	Median Home Price/ Sq. Ft
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Countywide		3,549	$310	-4.6%	1,109	$265	-11.1%	$226
Acton	93510	2	$331	-28.2%	1	$90	n/a	$155
Agoura Hills	91301	9	$635	-17.3%	9	$350	-29.4%	$283
Alhambra	91801	10	$425	-20.3%	7	$365	-3.2%	$354
Alhambra	91803	4	$408	-17.3%	3	$360	16.1%	$346
Altadena	91001	23	$463	11.4%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$349
Arcadia	91006	12	$897	-7.5%	2	$518	-22.7%	$370
Arcadia	91007	12	$820	-17.0%	8	$458	-26.8%	$433
Artesia	90701	7	$170	-38.2%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$234
Avalon	90704	2	$545	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	$632
Azusa	91702	20	$250	-16.4%	9	$165	4.8%	$216
Baldwin Pk	91706	28	$244	-5.1%	11	$206	46.8%	$200
Bell	90201	17	$225	12.5%	2	$159	-17.5%	$182
Bellflower	90706	24	$308	-4.7%	8	$174	-6.2%	$244
Beverly Hills	90210	13	$1,926	-35.9%	1	$735	-7.8%	$467
Beverly Hills	90211	1	$1,258	6.6%	2	$528	-21.3%	$694
Beverly Hills	90212	3	$2,100	52.2%	3	$850	0.0%	$756
Burbank	91501	4	$623	-7.0%	9	$384	32.2%	$413
Burbank	91502	1	$305	n/a	7	$230	-4.4%	$332
Burbank	91504	10	$505	-19.6%	4	$375	4.5%	$316
Burbank	91505	9	$469	0.9%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$353
Burbank	91506	10	$498	-0.4%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$352
Calabasas	91302	7	$1,010	-32.7%	13	$1,465	55.9%	$363
Canoga Park	91303	5	$231	-26.0%	4	$165	-24.1%	$231
Canoga Park	91304	16	$410	1.9%	12	$120	-1.6%	$231
Canyon Ctry	91351	14	$255	-25.3%	7	$305	56.4%	$178
Canyon Ctry	91387	16	$430	10.3%	13	$210	-23.1%	$181
Carson	90745	20	$278	-4.5%	13	$159	72.8%	$211
Carson	90746	11	$307	-9.6%	1	$404	67.3%	$194
Castaic	91384	11	$310	-21.2%	7	$270	-23.9%	$161
Cerritos	90703	14	$534	0.2%	9	$295	-28.0%	$328
Chatsworth	91311	23	$412	-12.3%	6	$245	-6.0%	$201
Claremont	91711	13	$410	-9.5%	4	$423	25.8%	$200
Compton	90220	39	$179	3.8%	1	$90	11.9%	$158
Compton	90221	24	$200	11.4%	1	$290	n/a	$170
Compton	90222	19	$164	16.5%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$150
Covina	91722	20	$295	-6.3%	1	$156	-35.2%	$233
Covina	91723	5	$327	-2.4%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$221
Covina	91724	6	$408	-11.3%	3	$230	13.9%	$255
Culver City	90230	6	$433	-33.5%	9	$340	-0.8%	$356
Culver City	90232	1	$711	12.6%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$467
Diamond Br	91765	18	$487	-10.7%	15	$260	8.3%	$246
Downey	90240	19	$423	7.0%	3	$250	-20.1%	$259
Downey	90241	16	$405	12.5%	3	$120	n/a	$258
Downey	90242	15	$325	-2.3%	2	$221	n/a	$238
Duarte	91010	9	$267	-5.5%	6	$231	-34.6%	$265
El Monte	91731	13	$320	11.1%	1	$250	n/a	$242
El Monte	91732	13	$270	-6.9%	9	$282	-23.0%	$247
El Monte – S	91733	11	$300	-11.8%	1	$250	6.4%	$252
El Segundo	90245	4	$618	-24.7%	3	$420	-4.3%	$418
Encino	91316	10	$535	31.1%	13	$235	-13.8%	$278
Encino	91436	7	$830	-35.1%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$394
Gardena	90247	13	$273	0.3%	9	$242	16.6%	$246
Gardena	90248	2	$348	-21.0%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$280
Gardena	90249	12	$295	-14.4%	1	$173	-61.2%	$297
Glendale	91201	8	$645	12.7%	1	$310	-5.3%	$335
Glendale	91202	11	$490	-14.8%	4	$275	-14.7%	$359
Glendale	91203	3	$238	-31.0%	3	$325	-24.9%	$335
Glendale	91204	n/a	n/a	n/a	2	$214	n/a	n/a
Glendale	91205	2	$402	-3.5%	2	$216	-36.8%	$355
Glendale	91206	9	$585	-13.3%	4	$212	-24.5%	$332
Glendale	91207	1	$1,415	95.0%	1	$330	53.5%	$486
Glendale	91208	2	$600	-4.0%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$333
Glendora	91740	8	$328	9.2%	3	$277	2.4%	$233
Glendora	91741	11	$515	-11.8%	2	$388	4.1%	$235
Granada Hls	91344	35	$400	-4.8%	3	$250	-3.8%	$233
Hacienda Ht	91745	21	$320	-9.9%	7	$220	-17.0%	$246
Harbor City	90710	5	$385	5.5%	7	$275	-28.1%	$245
Hawaiian Gn	90716	3	$220	15.8%	4	$154	16.2%	$163
Hawthorne	90250	22	$300	5.9%	2	$295	7.3%	$228
Hermosa Bh	90254	8	$1,100	2.3%	2	$608	-40.7%	$432
Huntngtn Pk	90255	16	$258	-4.1%	5	$160	83.9%	$185
Inglewood	90301	4	$218	-20.9%	5	$109	-36.9%	$254
Inglewood	90302	5	$230	17.9%	5	$125	-7.4%	$206
Inglewood	90303	5	$224	-19.3%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$197
Inglewood	90304	4	$223	14.1%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$242
Inglewood	90305	10	$279	-18.1%	3	$197	-32.2%	$214
LA	90003	23	$140	-5.1%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$127
LA	90004	9	$703	-21.2%	1	$304	-12.0%	$386
LA	90006	4	$345	-5.5%	4	$275	-27.6%	$156
LA	90010	n/a	n/a	n/a	1	$379	3.0%	n/a
LA	90011	18	$160	0.0%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$151
LA	90012	n/a	n/a	n/a	10	$253	-12.8%	n/a
LA	90015	n/a	n/a	n/a	7	$336	1.8%	n/a
LA	90016	15	$280	7.7%	5	$184	11.5%	$217
LA	90018	13	$270	31.7%	2	$396	n/a	$203
LA	90019	15	$491	3.0%	1	$345	1.5%	$230
LA	90020	n/a	n/a	n/a	7	$121	-24.4%	n/a
LA	90023	7	$140	-30.0%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$156
LA	90027	8	$760	0.1%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$398
LA	90029	2	$148	-54.6%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$308
LA	90034	7	$598	24.6%	2	$412	29.8%	$418
LA	90035	7	$807	-24.9%	6	$433	-9.9%	$480
LA	90036	2	$813	-0.9%	2	$458	n/a	$432
LA	90037	10	$211	-0.9%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$128
LA	90039	14	$400	11.9%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$377
LA	90047	44	$244	28.3%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$191
LA	90057	n/a	n/a	n/a	1	$70	n/a	n/a
LA	90062	15	$260	42.5%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$163
LA	90063	8	$130	-37.0%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$157
La Canada F	91011	14	$960	12.9%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$438
La Crescnta	91214	16	$552	-15.7%	3	$395	n/a	$357
La Mirada	90638	25	$357	-6.1%	7	$506	33.2%	$264
La Puente	91744	43	$241	3.8%	6	$220	-28.1%	$204
La Puente	91746	10	$260	-5.1%	1	$147	-12.5%	$196
La Verne	91750	13	$390	-16.6%	3	$150	0.0%	$238
LA/AugFHw	90044	26	$154	-8.6%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$152
LA/AugFHw	90059	27	$131	-12.8%	1	$160	n/a	$124
LA/AugFHw	90061	15	$195	21.9%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$149
LA/Bldwn H	90008	8	$460	48.4%	1	$295	n/a	$217
LA/Bel-Air	90077	7	$1,750	-13.3%	2	n/a	n/a	$513
LA/Boyle Ht	90033	4	$198	-5.4%	1	$270	n/a	$122
LA/Brentwd	90049	7	$1,540	-2.2%	12	$533	-32.6%	$693
LA/Centry C	90067	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
LA/CyofCom	90040	2	$222	-11.4%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$248
LA/Dockwlr	90007	1	$280	7.7%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$230
LA/Eagle Rk	90041	12	$352	-20.9%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$360
LA/East LA	90022	16	$197	-13.2%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$205
LA/Echo Pk	90026	7	$340	-6.1%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$266
LA/ElSereno	90032	23	$275	3.8%	2	$180	9.1%	$227
LA/Firstn Pk	90001	12	$133	20.9%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$162
LA/Glassell	90065	23	$328	-8.3%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$265
LA/Highld P	90042	20	$375	49.8%	2	$275	10.0%	$334
LA/Hollywd	90028	2	$508	36.4%	3	$323	-36.6%	$474
LA/Hollywd	90068	15	$830	-2.5%	3	$273	-33.3%	$435
LA/Ladera H	90056	5	$533	-29.9%	1	$159	-51.2%	$238
LA/Lincln H	90031	5	$180	-52.0%	1	$130	n/a	$194
LA/Mar Vsta	90066	9	$685	-2.0%	3	$450	-3.9%	$483
LA/Rncho P	90064	17	$800	-10.0%	1	$430	-19.2%	$502
LA/Sanford	90005	1	$420	-39.4%	4	$323	-10.7%	$228
LA/VPk/WH	90043	30	$278	23.3%	1	$60	n/a	$199
LA/Watts	90002	28	$131	9.2%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$123
LA/West LA	90025	4	$907	-2.3%	10	$507	-8.3%	$579
LA/Westchtr	90045	13	$625	-10.6%	1	$191	n/a	$440
LA/Westwd	90024	4	$2,324	-18.5%	11	$495	7.0%	$625
Lake Hughes	93532	6	$130	85.7%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$104
Lakewood	90712	12	$365	-3.7%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$284
Lakewood	90713	23	$378	-10.5%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$299
Lakewood	90715	18	$327	-13.0%	3	$205	n/a	$275
Lancaster	93534	37	$95	-14.4%	2	$49	n/a	$68
Lancaster	93535	97	$105	8.5%	1	$32	-37.3%	$64
Lancaster	93536	63	$183	-3.9%	2	$58	-32.4%	$84
Lawndale	90260	8	$300	-4.8%	2	$420	68.0%	$301
Littlerock	93543	18	$104	1.0%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$76
Llano	93544	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
Lomita	90717	10	$446	27.3%	2	$313	-22.9%	$265
Long Beach	90802	3	$399	n/a	27	$180	-2.7%	$292
Long Beach	90803	11	$750	-17.6%	10	$330	-34.7%	$543
Long Beach	90804	6	$215	-55.2%	12	$119	16.2%	$263
Long Beach	90805	25	$245	2.1%	3	$79	7.9%	$205
Long Beach	90806	15	$320	-9.9%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$248
Long Beach	90807	11	$363	-15.0%	3	$135	-30.1%	$251
Long Beach	90808	32	$444	-12.2%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$325
Long Beach	90810	15	$235	-5.2%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$208
Long Beach	90813	11	$208	5.4%	2	$165	4.9%	$206
Long Beach	90814	2	$570	-10.2%	4	$216	-21.4%	$420
Long Beach	90815	14	$436	-12.3%	2	$212	-33.9%	$317
Los Angeles	90021	n/a	n/a	n/a	1	$500	75.4%	n/a
Los Angeles	90058	1	$170	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	$149
Lynwood	90262	20	$225	7.1%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$182
Malibu	90265	3	$1,250	-54.5%	6	$528	-36.4%	$776
Manhattan B	90266	18	$1,555	5.0%	2	$1,538	26.9%	$599
Marina del R	90292	3	$1,300	-11.9%	14	$550	-8.2%	$436
Maywood	90270	4	$225	38.5%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$176
Mission Hills	91345	9	$309	0.3%	2	$220	0.0%	$201
Monrovia	91016	9	$405	-13.8%	4	$382	-14.8%	$317
Montebello	90640	13	$338	-1.3%	8	$143	-29.4%	$255
Monterey Pk	91754	11	$455	2.9%	3	$380	-19.8%	$327
Monterey Pk	91755	3	$490	2.3%	3	$386	-34.3%	$274
Montrose	91020	3	$540	-12.2%	1	$300	-30.2%	$389
Newhall	91321	11	$284	-22.6%	6	$203	4.5%	$213
North Hills	91343	20	$330	-12.6%	18	$206	10.8%	$198
N Hollywd	91601	10	$419	17.3%	1	$280	n/a	$348
N Hollywd	91602	2	$685	1.5%	2	$328	-0.8%	$397
N Hollywd	91605	22	$305	0.6%	3	$230	142.1%	$202
N Hollywd	91606	13	$320	-5.9%	5	$250	4.2%	$231
Northridge	91324	14	$341	-20.1%	4	$220	-21.4%	$212
Northridge	91325	17	$391	7.1%	4	$136	n/a	$220
Northridge	91326	11	$530	-1.4%	6	$648	26.0%	$239
Norwalk	90650	51	$280	1.3%	7	$230	-9.8%	$212
P Palisades	90272	15	$1,425	-36.6%	1	$640	4.1%	$674
Pacoima	91331	43	$243	-2.8%	6	$143	-29.6%	$181
Palmdale	93550	58	$113	7.1%	9	$48	2.1%	$73
Palmdale	93551	57	$183	-15.3%	5	$100	-31.0%	$86
Palmdale	93552	50	$145	0.0%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$75
Palmdale	93591	11	$75	18.6%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$54
Palos V Pen	90274	14	$1,525	19.6%	1	$615	-18.0%	$516
Panorama C	91402	21	$255	-7.3%	17	$129	-7.9%	$203
Paramount	90723	8	$200	-9.1%	8	$125	8.7%	$165
Pasadena	91101	1	$300	n/a	12	$485	61.7%	$134
Pasadena	91103	12	$425	49.1%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$287
Pasadena	91104	26	$517	20.3%	5	$313	12.8%	$343
Pasadena	91105	3	$1,628	148.0%	1	$611	25.0%	$450
Pasadena	91106	6	$1,048	-26.5%	12	$356	-8.2%	$475
Pasadena	91107	19	$465	-28.5%	3	$385	n/a	$394
Pearblossom	93553	2	$180	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	$91
Pico Rivera	90660	30	$266	-4.9%	3	$310	-1.6%	$247
Playa dl Rey	90293	2	$1,301	-7.1%	6	$368	-13.9%	$451
Playa Vista	90094	n/a	n/a	n/a	7	$519	-3.2%	n/a
Pomona	91766	28	$203	7.5%	6	$194	-2.0%	$154
Pomona	91767	31	$215	4.1%	4	$106	-12.1%	$149
Pomona	91768	9	$179	-18.9%	3	$315	n/a	$161
Rancho PV	90275	20	$828	-1.4%	7	$418	-26.6%	$418
Redondo Bh	90277	8	$1,028	20.9%	7	$581	-19.3%	$459
Redondo Bh	90278	11	$665	9.8%	16	$643	-1.0%	$373
Reseda	91335	30	$285	-13.6%	15	$215	19.4%	$215
Rosemead	91770	19	$348	-20.2%	2	$278	-22.7%	$342
Rowland Hts	91748	19	$420	-4.1%	2	$170	-29.2%	$250
San Dimas	91773	8	$421	0.8%	5	$295	-11.3%	$241
Sn Fernando	91340	18	$218	12.4%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$197
San Gabriel	91775	11	$635	13.4%	1	$735	n/a	$331
San Gabriel	91776	10	$439	-12.1%	5	$415	50.9%	$299
San Marino	91108	3	$1,848	26.1%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$562
San Pedro	90731	12	$343	-31.0%	4	$233	-47.1%	$257
San Pedro	90732	10	$459	-23.5%	7	$200	-46.8%	$344
Snta Clarita	91350	20	$375	-6.3%	12	$246	-20.6%	$209
Snta Clarita	91390	14	$455	-4.2%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$169
Santa Fe Spr	90670	8	$308	-3.3%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$230
Snta Monica	90401	n/a	n/a	n/a	1	$655	-30.1%	n/a
Snta Monica	90402	7	$2,013	3.2%	1	$1,675	60.7%	$772
Snta Monica	90403	1	$1,385	-51.8%	8	$494	-35.2%	$827
Snta Monica	90404	n/a	n/a	n/a	7	$522	-8.4%	n/a
Snta Monica	90405	9	$900	-29.4%	9	$509	-10.9%	$603
Shermn Oks	91403	8	$752	-10.0%	4	$299	-3.6%	$297
Shermn Oks	91423	14	$677	-28.7%	2	$299	-12.1%	$362
Sierra Mdre	91024	3	$645	-26.0%	1	$615	23.2%	$394
Signal Hill	90755	2	$635	n/a	3	$295	13.5%	$285
South Gate	90280	30	$235	4.4%	5	$230	-8.0%	$212
S Pasadena	91030	6	$758	-16.1%	4	$328	-35.8%	$463
Stevenson R	91381	4	$630	-3.0%	9	$295	-37.2%	$233
Studio City	91604	15	$837	3.6%	5	$413	-0.5%	$399
Sun Valley	91352	15	$240	-9.4%	3	$142	-16.6%	$206
Sunland	91040	20	$375	4.9%	3	$237	-23.3%	$253
Sylmar	91342	38	$315	4.9%	23	$172	-16.1%	$199
Tarzana	91356	18	$780	-2.0%	18	$175	-36.0%	$287
Temple City	91780	13	$510	-11.1%	3	$255	-43.3%	$353
Topanga	90290	7	$800	-14.1%	2	$328	-41.0%	$328
Torrance	90501	11	$475	18.8%	3	$290	-24.5%	$318
Torrance	90502	5	$225	-19.9%	8	$249	25.8%	$257
Torrance	90503	7	$583	-9.4%	12	$440	-26.1%	$431
Torrance	90504	16	$450	5.9%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$305
Torrance	90505	11	$728	12.8%	2	$298	-20.7%	$398
Tujunga	91042	22	$332	-20.1%	2	$236	5.1%	$242
Valencia	91354	10	$386	10.3%	14	$326	6.0%	$182
Valencia	91355	7	$361	-25.6%	13	$253	-20.8%	$257
Valley Vlge	91607	14	$520	-9.6%	1	$400	12.7%	$287
Van Nuys	91401	15	$497	13.7%	3	$330	50.0%	$280
Van Nuys	91405	9	$328	9.2%	8	$160	25.7%	$225
V Nuys/LB	91406	33	$315	6.2%	6	$163	-11.7%	$217
V Nuys/SO	91411	4	$272	-36.9%	4	$150	-50.0%	$221
Venice	90291	4	$920	-35.0%	1	$765	-19.0%	$794
Walnut	91789	25	$625	15.7%	1	$299	-17.2%	$278
West Covina	91790	20	$325	-5.8%	2	$295	43.7%	$240
West Covina	91791	7	$365	-12.0%	7	$250	-15.3%	$228
West Covina	91792	6	$321	-9.1%	6	$250	24.8%	$234
West Hills	91307	21	$455	-3.8%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$259
W Hlywd/LA	90038	4	$412	-5.3%	1	$388	-17.3%	$294
W Hlywd/LA	90046	21	$863	-4.2%	9	$326	-39.0%	$494
W Hlywd/LA	90048	4	$1,020	-17.3%	2	$495	29.9%	$627
W Hlywd/LA	90069	8	$863	-47.7%	16	$400	-11.5%	$574
Whittier	90601	15	$316	-20.1%	3	$205	14.5%	$218
Whittier	90602	6	$325	-35.1%	1	$228	-34.7%	$281
Whittier	90603	4	$370	-9.8%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$250
Whittier	90604	14	$315	-1.7%	2	$215	24.3%	$224
Whittier	90605	19	$272	0.7%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$216
Whittier	90606	14	$260	-4.1%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$261
Wilmington	90744	15	$268	3.3%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$188
Winnetka	91306	20	$320	-8.4%	6	$210	40.5%	$208
Woodlnd Hls	91364	21	$525	-8.7%	1	$765	259.2%	$280
Woodlnd Hls	91367	22	$478	-4.5%	14	$239	-25.5%	$258
		Single Family Residences			Condominiums			SFR Only
ORANGE COUNTY		SFR	Price	% chg	Condos	Price	% chg	$/Sq Ft
Countywide		1,249	$480	-2.0%	582	$282	-6.0%	$283
Aliso Viejo	92656	21	$480	-11.1%	33	$285	-17.9%	$211
Anaheim	92801	17	$310	-8.8%	12	$279	-34.9%	$260
Anaheim	92802	5	$375	11.0%	7	$280	-3.1%	$232
Anaheim	92804	31	$350	0.0%	12	$151	-8.5%	$257
Anaheim	92805	24	$296	-8.6%	2	$233	37.6%	$241
Anaheim	92806	9	$370	-5.5%	1	$155	-26.2%	$232
Anaheim Hls	92807	13	$450	-2.7%	3	$229	27.2%	$272
Anaheim Hls	92808	14	$627	-12.9%	9	$315	-3.1%	$220
Balboa Islnd	92662	1	$2,395	55.0%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$1,774
Brea	92821	22	$445	-11.4%	1	$369	16.2%	$250
Brea	92823	3	$700	-12.5%	1	$320	n/a	$269
Buena Park	90620	25	$370	1.2%	1	$211	-10.2%	$276
Buena Park	90621	20	$333	-12.5%	2	$267	-1.3%	$203
Capistrno B	92624	3	$610	14.0%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$146
Corona d Mr	92625	12	$1,570	-12.5%	6	$885	-38.8%	$756
Costa Mesa	92626	17	$523	3.6%	4	$320	-8.7%	$311
Costa Mesa	92627	20	$520	39.6%	8	$395	12.9%	$343
Cypress	90630	22	$450	11.4%	3	$335	3.2%	$293
Dana Point	92629	13	$590	-9.2%	7	$470	4.5%	$341
Foothill Rch	92610	7	$500	-20.2%	4	$248	-10.5%	n/a
Fountain Vly	92708	27	$572	-4.7%	1	$149	-39.6%	$296
Fullerton	92831	12	$512	5.6%	7	$265	-17.8%	$270
Fullerton	92832	7	$329	-6.0%	5	$51	1.0%	$273
Fullerton	92833	29	$445	-5.1%	10	$375	-6.0%	$274
Fullerton	92835	10	$755	18.9%	2	$180	-1.0%	$323
Garden Grv	92840	26	$364	2.0%	8	$218	49.3%	$283
Garden Grv	92841	15	$373	-6.8%	2	$167	-30.4%	$312
Garden Grv	92843	16	$380	11.8%	5	$150	-14.3%	$292
Garden Grv	92844	13	$335	12.2%	2	$203	-28.9%	$222
Garden Grv	92845	9	$430	-16.9%	2	$266	-2.5%	$330
Huntingtn B	92646	26	$575	-12.3%	13	$336	0.1%	$355
Huntingtn B	92647	16	$487	-11.9%	6	$217	3.1%	$341
Huntingtn B	92648	15	$726	-19.3%	10	$369	-4.8%	$339
Huntingtn B	92649	14	$840	10.3%	11	$278	-24.4%	$395
Irvine	92602	6	$928	31.8%	7	$475	-10.2%	n/a
Irvine	92603	7	$1,200	-5.3%	8	$608	8.6%	$503
Irvine	92604	9	$568	3.2%	8	$434	24.1%	$386
Irvine	92606	7	$690	15.3%	2	$349	-38.8%	$299
Irvine	92612	5	$590	5.3%	9	$400	-7.1%	$324
Irvine	92614	2	$799	22.8%	9	$480	15.2%	$401
Irvine	92618	3	$431	-40.2%	6	$515	71.7%	$441
Irvine	92620	17	$645	-14.1%	16	$530	6.9%	$306
La Habra	90631	23	$365	-6.4%	3	$144	-30.0%	$269
La Palma	90623	9	$439	-24.3%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$250
Ladera Rnch	92694	14	$833	45.5%	8	$354	-4.3%	n/a
Laguna Bch	92651	27	$1,020	-16.7%	3	$1,000	95.9%	$848
Laguna Hills	92653	17	$560	4.2%	8	$210	-17.6%	$282
Laguna Nigl	92677	37	$685	-1.4%	16	$299	10.7%	$288
Laguna Wds	92637	n/a	n/a	n/a	23	$227	24.0%	n/a
Lake Forest	92630	19	$466	-13.8%	20	$208	-5.7%	$274
Los Alamitos	90720	9	$702	-1.4%	1	$425	n/a	$423
Midway City	92655	2	$405	-1.6%	1	$236	n/a	$375
Mission Vjo	92691	19	$505	3.4%	9	$209	-12.0%	$255
Mission Vjo	92692	45	$525	-14.4%	13	$335	-4.3%	$268
Newport Bh	92660	22	$1,190	-19.0%	3	$1,291	162.9%	$394
Newport Bh	92661	2	$2,575	-47.2%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$1,033
Newport Bh	92663	9	$1,785	44.2%	10	$515	3.0%	$1,000
Newport Cst	92657	11	$1,890	11.2%	3	$795	34.7%	$602
Orange	92865	5	$372	-15.4%	6	$245	16.7%	$229
Orange	92866	3	$410	-16.6%	1	$500	49.9%	$334
Orange	92867	15	$440	-9.2%	1	$205	-57.7%	$257
Orange	92868	2	$309	-10.2%	4	$180	-40.0%	$246
Orange	92869	19	$577	-6.6%	9	$345	-2.3%	$261
Placentia	92870	19	$433	0.7%	5	$210	-44.0%	$227
Rancho S M	92688	20	$496	-7.8%	30	$316	0.3%	$265
San Clemnte	92672	22	$680	1.5%	5	$342	-0.9%	$345
San Clemnte	92673	18	$745	17.3%	13	$428	14.0%	$330
San Juan C	92675	18	$443	27.3%	12	$274	76.6%	$239
Santa Ana	92701	6	$244	-14.4%	11	$110	18.9%	$226
Santa Ana	92703	25	$260	8.3%	8	$150	32.3%	$230
Santa Ana	92704	23	$305	-12.7%	16	$148	3.7%	$253
Santa Ana	92705	19	$615	-12.4%	4	$172	14.3%	$308
Santa Ana	92706	15	$354	-1.7%	3	$180	30.2%	$267
Santa Ana	92707	21	$265	0.0%	12	$140	-19.3%	$237
Seal Beach	90740	7	$885	12.0%	1	$657	105.2%	$493
Silverado	92676	2	$403	-46.3%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$454
Stanton	90680	8	$254	-20.6%	10	$180	-11.1%	$213
Sunset Bch	90742	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
Surfside	90743	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
Trabuco Cyn	92678	1	$112	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	$148
Trabuco Cyn	92679	22	$675	-4.5%	4	$271	-8.4%	$267
Tustin	92780	18	$448	-6.8%	13	$182	4.0%	$294
Tustin	92782	6	$812	-4.5%	6	$428	13.2%	$267
Villa Park	92861	2	$825	-7.8%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$316
Westminster	92683	43	$400	-4.1%	4	$320	144.3%	$273
Yorba Linda	92886	26	$566	-15.5%	7	$238	-10.4%	$300
Yorba Linda	92887	10	$660	-4.7%	7	$210	-19.2%	$300
		Single Family Residences			Condominiums			SFR Only
RIVERSIDE COUNTY		SFR	Price	% chg	Condos	Price	% chg	$/Sq Ft
Countywide		2,273	$189	0.0%	286	$147	-1.5%	$98
Aguanga	92536	1	$185	1.4%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$93
Anza	92539	5	$120	31.1%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$71
Banning	92220	29	$93	32.1%	3	$99	-33.6%	$73
Beaumont	92223	59	$187	-6.5%	1	$128	-11.4%	$81
Blythe	92225	4	$90	-30.0%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$76
Blythe	92226	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
Cabazon	92230	2	$61	-15.4%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$46
Calimesa	92320	10	$158	3.3%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$111
Canyon Lake	92587	18	$210	-12.5%	3	$90	n/a	$115
Cathedrl Cty	92234	47	$159	-6.5%	9	$126	20.0%	$90
Coachella	92236	41	$127	-15.3%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$68
Corona	91719	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
Corona	91720	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
Corona	92879	38	$280	12.0%	7	$100	-42.9%	$148
Corona	92880	62	$349	-5.7%	2	$263	n/a	$121
Corona	92881	28	$330	1.5%	2	$238	4.4%	$156
Corona	92882	36	$300	14.9%	11	$128	16.1%	$158
Corona	92883	50	$285	-7.5%	1	$258	n/a	$132
Desert Ctr	92239	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
Dsrt Hot Spr	92240	76	$87	-2.3%	2	$36	-15.9%	$57
Dsrt Hot Spr	92241	12	$80	-24.9%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$60
Hemet	92543	23	$98	30.7%	1	$44	3.5%	$71
Hemet	92544	53	$128	4.7%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$77
Hemet	92545	71	$127	-12.4%	1	$73	-19.0%	$69
Homeland	92548	1	$300	-15.5%	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
Idyllwild	92549	9	$170	-2.9%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$107
Indian Wells	92210	12	$1,250	42.0%	10	$370	1.4%	$304
Indio	92201	65	$131	-12.4%	9	$70	30.2%	$82
Indio	92203	65	$203	-1.2%	5	$105	-50.8%	$80
La Quinta	92253	76	$251	-23.9%	19	$345	25.5%	$118
Lake Elsinre	92530	65	$151	-8.5%	7	$111	20.1%	$96
Lake Elsinre	92532	29	$217	-3.8%	3	$132	7.8%	$84
Mecca	92254	1	$27	-67.5%	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
Menifee	92584	56	$207	1.6%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$91
Mira Loma	91752	29	$265	-10.2%	2	$194	-0.4%	$134
Moreno Vly	92551	47	$144	5.9%	3	$105	16.7%	$92
Moreno Vly	92552	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
Moreno Vly	92553	55	$126	-0.4%	1	$130	n/a	$90
Moreno Vly	92555	48	$215	4.8%	2	$107	1.4%	$82
Moreno Vly	92557	50	$160	3.2%	1	$48	n/a	$94
Mountn Ctr	92561	1	$360	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	$100
Murrieta	92562	60	$250	-0.2%	6	$145	29.5%	$107
Murrieta	92563	71	$245	-2.0%	14	$112	0.4%	$96
Norco	92860	26	$333	4.1%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$145
N Palm Spr	92258	1	$42	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	$41
Nuevo	92567	6	$147	-9.8%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$92
Palm Desert	92211	40	$319	-12.1%	25	$216	-28.0%	$151
Palm Desert	92260	15	$205	-17.3%	27	$165	-33.1%	$115
Palm Sprngs	92262	36	$250	-4.8%	25	$115	-8.8%	$136
Palm Sprngs	92264	19	$405	13.1%	19	$149	-30.3%	$184
Perris	92570	36	$163	20.4%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$88
Perris	92571	72	$155	9.9%	2	$93	-3.1%	$75
Rancho Mrg	92270	19	$455	-6.2%	22	$326	-2.0%	$187
Riverside	92501	14	$144	-7.4%	1	$137	70.2%	$98
Riverside	92503	54	$180	-2.7%	7	$125	47.1%	$122
Riverside	92504	47	$170	-2.9%	3	$218	n/a	$127
Riverside	92505	23	$188	19.4%	2	$145	-32.0%	$133
Riverside	92506	44	$225	1.1%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$149
Riverside	92507	23	$168	-6.9%	9	$135	28.6%	$110
Riverside	92508	28	$278	-3.5%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$116
Riverside	92509	50	$170	12.4%	3	$104	22.4%	$114
San Jacinto	92582	27	$160	2.2%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$61
San Jacinto	92583	31	$125	0.0%	1	$64	n/a	$69
Sun City	92585	30	$186	9.4%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$85
Sun City	92586	29	$132	-1.1%	1	$50	-28.6%	$77
Temecula	92590	1	$975	143.8%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$150
Temecula	92591	39	$285	10.9%	2	$183	-4.8%	$119
Temecula	92592	74	$280	7.7%	7	$150	30.4%	$130
Thermal	92274	5	$106	-31.9%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$56
Thousand P	92276	4	$181	44.4%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$109
White Water	92282	2	$45	-67.2%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$31
Wildomar	92595	35	$211	-6.2%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$97
Winchester	92596	36	$235	3.5%	5	$120	29.7%	$90
		Single Family Residences			Condominiums			SFR Only
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY		SFR	Price	% chg	Condos	Price	% chg	$/Sq Ft
Countywide		1,861	$150	3.4%	152	$122	-9.6%	$95
Adelanto	92301	53	$95	14.5%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$52
Angeles Oks	92305	1	$62	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	$51
Apple Valley	92307	42	$122	-3.9%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$63
Apple Valley	92308	41	$99	-15.0%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$60
Barstow	92311	26	$65	47.7%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$41
Big Bear Cty	92314	41	$133	-2.7%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$112
Big Bear Lke	92315	24	$243	3.4%	2	$238	101.5%	$171
Bloomington	92316	28	$149	8.0%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$109
Blue Jay	92317	1	$58	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	$97
Cedar Glen	92321	3	$40	-64.3%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$45
Cedarpns Pk	92322	1	$443	580.8%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$166
Chino	91710	40	$295	3.5%	13	$180	0.0%	$176
Chino Hills	91709	51	$415	-11.7%	9	$213	3.4%	$214
Colton	92324	42	$130	8.3%	5	$40	-30.4%	$95
Crest Park	92326	1	$160	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	$154
Crestline	92325	17	$74	-34.3%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$77
Daggett	92327	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
Fawnskin	92333	2	$255	-17.6%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$190
Fontana	92334	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
Fontana	92335	67	$163	20.4%	6	$43	-46.5%	$120
Fontana	92336	114	$268	7.0%	1	$60	n/a	$119
Fontana	92337	32	$192	3.0%	2	$74	-8.1%	$123
Forest Falls	92339	2	$95	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	$83
Grand Terrce	92313	6	$213	6.8%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$129
Green Vly Lk	92341	3	$135	90.1%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$161
Helendale	92342	19	$142	-11.3%	4	$134	131.0%	$68
Hesperia	92344	27	$145	-3.3%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$65
Hesperia	92345	121	$107	-3.8%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$62
Highlands	92346	32	$168	2.3%	7	$29	-59.9%	$102
Hinkley	92347	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
Joshua Tree	92252	16	$50	-37.3%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$48
Lke Arrowhd	92352	30	$280	-28.2%	2	$208	-28.1%	$133
Landers	92285	7	$35	-35.8%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$46
Loma Linda	92354	23	$255	-7.3%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$133
Lucerne Vly	92356	5	$45	-25.0%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$36
Lytle Creek	92358	4	$207	47.9%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$114
Mentone	92359	4	$165	-24.4%	2	$53	64.1%	$96
Montclair	91763	16	$235	5.9%	4	$167	18.3%	$177
Morongo Vly	92256	6	$67	-10.3%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$62
Needles	92363	2	$115	76.9%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$60
Newbry Spr	92365	1	$88	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
Ontario	91761	30	$245	-5.6%	6	$79	-37.2%	$142
Ontario	91762	25	$230	-8.0%	14	$107	-0.5%	$147
Ontario	91764	27	$200	8.1%	4	$132	-9.5%	$164
Oro Grande	92368	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
Phelan	92371	13	$112	-17.2%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$67
Pinon Hills	92372	10	$148	13.9%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$82
Pioneertown	92268	1	$38	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	$95
R Cucamnga	91701	25	$340	-5.3%	8	$137	152.8%	$179
R Cucamnga	91730	31	$255	-9.7%	14	$166	-24.5%	$176
R Cucamnga	91737	13	$299	-30.5%	5	$85	-29.2%	$191
R Cucamnga	91739	27	$400	-6.8%	8	$190	-17.2%	$157
Redlands	92373	17	$275	-10.6%	1	$145	n/a	$182
Redlands	92374	32	$199	-4.6%	1	$61	n/a	$123
Rialto	92376	74	$155	13.6%	5	$105	22.8%	$106
Rialto	92377	27	$197	-2.4%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$109
Rim Forest	92378	2	$56	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	$52
Running Spr	92382	14	$95	-0.5%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$77
San Brndno	92401	1	$51	-27.1%	1	$35	n/a	$39
San Brndno	92404	50	$119	22.9%	4	$75	72.4%	$84
San Brndno	92405	30	$95	6.4%	4	$52	-7.6%	$78
San Brndno	92407	49	$150	11.1%	5	$60	-17.2%	$101
San Brndno	92408	9	$141	56.9%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$96
San Brndno	92410	29	$73	7.0%	1	$41	-3.5%	$67
San Brndno	92411	21	$100	33.3%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$82
Sky Forest	92385	1	$450	89.9%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$177
Sugarloaf	92386	10	$60	-35.8%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$84
Trona	93562	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
29 Palms	92277	18	$55	-14.0%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$56
Twin Peaks	92391	3	$71	-17.1%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$74
Upland	91784	19	$480	5.4%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$168
Upland	91786	22	$255	-4.7%	8	$141	-37.2%	$170
Victorville	92392	70	$124	2.9%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$59
Victorville	92394	69	$115	4.5%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$57
Victorville	92395	47	$109	-3.1%	1	$44	n/a	$59
Wrightwood	92397	5	$120	-33.9%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$92
Yermo	92398	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
Yucaipa	92399	40	$240	9.1%	1	$233	142.1%	$115
Yucca Valley	92284	38	$65	-18.8%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$57
		Single Family Residences			Condominiums			SFR Only
SAN DIEGO COUNTY		SFR	Price	% chg	Condos	Price	% chg	$/Sq Ft
Countywide		1,364	$350	1.4%	746	$200	-0.7%	$202
Alpine	91901	8	$433	8.3%	3	$110	-35.4%	$182
Bay Park	92110	3	$525	-16.2%	11	$257	4.9%	$317
Bonita	91902	11	$460	-3.7%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$179
Bonsall	92003	1	$869	47.1%	1	$105	-49.9%	$230
Borrego Spr	92004	9	$203	50.0%	1	$255	n/a	$111
Boulevard	91905	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
Campo	91906	5	$173	208.0%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$92
Cardiff bSea	92007	7	$425	-42.5%	1	$1,180	n/a	$337
Carlsbad	92008	7	$490	-19.0%	6	$418	-3.0%	$323
Carlsbad	92009	22	$783	10.6%	11	$335	13.0%	$262
Carlsbad	92010	10	$507	18.2%	2	$379	1.1%	$247
Carlsbad	92011	15	$675	15.2%	3	$620	49.4%	$276
Chula Vista	91910	25	$315	-3.1%	15	$175	-2.8%	$193
Chula Vista	91911	38	$285	15.7%	19	$135	-4.3%	$182
Chula Vista	91913	31	$400	11.1%	16	$190	-4.0%	$163
Chula Vista	91914	11	$509	-10.7%	7	$221	5.2%	$178
Chula Vista	91915	23	$350	-15.7%	17	$227	-10.2%	$189
Clairemont	92117	30	$408	7.2%	6	$201	34.0%	$287
College Grve	92115	20	$280	-17.0%	15	$101	-8.2%	$216
Coronado	92118	10	$1,190	-2.9%	3	$900	-13.9%	$611
Del Mar	92014	4	$1,363	29.7%	4	$445	-33.7%	$555
Descanso	91916	1	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
Downtown	92101	n/a	n/a	n/a	56	$305	-2.2%	n/a
Dulzura	91917	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
E San Diego	92102	10	$190	1.1%	6	$88	-50.0%	$184
E San Diego	92105	20	$206	-4.2%	12	$109	45.3%	$204
El Cajon	92019	21	$318	-23.4%	12	$136	-19.3%	$198
El Cajon	92020	20	$360	30.7%	17	$96	-0.5%	$175
El Cajon	92021	22	$305	4.7%	16	$123	-8.9%	$186
Encanto	92114	51	$243	10.6%	3	$173	-21.6%	$167
Encinitas	92024	23	$745	-2.0%	10	$325	-16.7%	$296
Escondido	92025	21	$285	3.6%	10	$126	6.8%	$189
Escondido	92026	40	$296	-11.0%	6	$125	27.2%	$169
Escondido	92027	24	$271	28.5%	11	$95	11.8%	$179
Escondido	92029	12	$479	-22.2%	2	$218	51.0%	$226
Fallbrook	92028	42	$351	16.9%	1	$159	n/a	$168
Grantville	92120	11	$394	-12.4%	8	$218	54.3%	$268
Hillcrest	92103	9	$652	-15.3%	14	$345	4.5%	$371
Imperial Bch	91932	5	$325	30.0%	4	$188	63.0%	$270
Jacumba	91934	2	$34	-60.6%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$34
Jamul	91935	6	$396	-7.5%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$97
Julian	92036	9	$298	19.2%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$163
La Jolla	92037	17	$1,143	-32.4%	18	$589	12.7%	$532
La Mesa	91941	14	$425	8.8%	1	$170	97.7%	$182
La Mesa	91942	12	$340	14.5%	6	$193	-7.2%	$250
Lakeside	92040	21	$288	-9.1%	6	$100	-13.0%	$172
Lemon Grve	91945	15	$230	-6.1%	3	$120	3.4%	$177
Linda Vista	92111	17	$360	-21.9%	16	$155	-49.2%	$243
Logan Hts	92113	13	$160	6.7%	5	$90	-27.5%	$145
Mira Mesa	92126	25	$379	-1.7%	18	$190	-18.1%	$239
Mission Vlge	92123	6	$328	-30.5%	8	$276	-18.1%	$262
National Cty	91950	26	$219	21.7%	11	$147	-46.5%	$153
Normal Hts	92116	13	$445	31.1%	11	$130	-7.5%	$358
North Cty W	92130	23	$966	17.7%	15	$400	-3.6%	$314
North Park	92104	12	$410	7.2%	14	$181	-28.6%	$363
Ocean Bch	92107	6	$589	-34.4%	6	$247	-7.9%	$461
Oceanside	92054	10	$420	25.4%	8	$236	-21.6%	$187
Oceanside	92056	43	$316	1.9%	2	$105	-45.7%	$198
Oceanside	92057	33	$269	-10.3%	12	$173	44.0%	$183
Pacific Bch	92109	8	$595	-25.8%	15	$230	-33.3%	$492
Palomar Mtn	92060	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
Paradise Hls	92139	12	$270	6.5%	13	$128	-7.9%	$173
Pauma Vly	92061	1	$595	-30.0%	3	$139	n/a	$219
Pine Valley	91962	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
Point Loma	92106	4	$580	-33.1%	3	$285	-56.8%	$422
Potrero	91963	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
Poway	92064	29	$484	27.2%	3	$290	-4.9%	$260
Ramona	92065	27	$313	2.6%	1	$135	0.7%	$160
Ranchita	92066	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
Rcho Bnardo	92127	15	$630	-17.4%	18	$248	3.1%	$247
Rcho Bnardo	92128	25	$510	4.1%	28	$253	0.5%	$259
Rcho Pnasq	92129	12	$488	-13.3%	11	$205	6.2%	$278
Rcho Sta Fe	92067	10	$1,530	-14.5%	1	$690	n/a	$519
Rcho Sta Fe	92091	5	$800	24.0%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$315
San Carlos	92119	10	$385	-6.1%	8	$158	16.2%	$234
San Diego	92108	n/a	n/a	n/a	33	$180	-25.0%	n/a
San Diego	92112	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
San Marcos	92069	23	$315	-3.2%	8	$146	27.0%	$181
San Marcos	92078	24	$415	-16.2%	14	$235	-16.1%	$218
San Ysidro	92173	7	$220	-22.8%	6	$120	25.8%	$178
Santa Ysabel	92070	1	$288	21.5%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$149
Santee	92071	23	$278	-14.6%	18	$183	7.0%	$201
Scripps Rch	92131	21	$615	7.9%	7	$297	-15.8%	$277
Solana Bch	92075	9	$850	-22.7%	1	$340	-50.6%	$371
S San Diego	92154	27	$255	1.4%	17	$170	15.3%	$168
Spring Vly	91977	32	$240	-12.7%	3	$98	-30.0%	$151
Spring Vly	91978	9	$380	33.3%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$169
Tierrasanta	92124	7	$545	-11.2%	6	$285	-3.0%	$281
Univrsty Cty	92121	2	$655	-3.2%	4	$354	-6.7%	$295
Univrsty Cty	92122	6	$613	4.4%	14	$250	25.0%	$350
Valley Ctr	92082	14	$448	-3.3%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$151
Vista	92081	11	$361	8.4%	4	$281	28.7%	$199
Vista	92083	11	$251	7.6%	4	$132	-27.6%	$162
Vista	92084	21	$327	3.8%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$169
Warner Spr	92086	1	$55	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	$54
		Single Family Residences			Condominiums			SFR Only
SANTA BARBARA COUNTY		SFR	Price	% chg	Condos	Price	% chg	$/Sq Ft
Countywide		156	$271	-13.1%	31	$200	-21.6%	$160
Buellton	93427	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
Carpinteria	93013	2	$863	76.0%	5	$350	6.1%	$697
Goleta	93117	8	$708	18.4%	5	$330	-28.6%	$377
Guadalupe	93434	4	$185	115.7%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$127
Lompoc	93436	27	$185	-13.6%	8	$97	-10.6%	$119
Sta Barbara	93101	6	$500	-26.4%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$465
Sta Barbara	93103	4	$590	-33.5%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$202
Sta Barbara	93105	6	$810	-3.5%	1	$410	-37.0%	$357
Sta Barbara	93108	4	$3,150	26.8%	1	$890	n/a	$838
Sta Barbara	93109	7	$1,063	9.0%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$630
Sta Barbara	93110	3	$1,053	-52.7%	3	$627	103.9%	$528
Sta Barbara	93111	6	$993	80.0%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$455
Santa Maria	93454	22	$225	15.5%	2	$185	10.5%	$139
Santa Maria	93455	33	$271	-6.6%	6	$129	-24.3%	$169
Santa Maria	93458	17	$190	0.0%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$145
Santa Ynez	93460	3	$510	-27.1%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$230
Solvang	93463	2	$390	-40.5%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$278
Summerland	93067	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
		Single Family Residences			Condominiums			SFR Only
VENTURA COUNTY		SFR	Price	% chg	Condos	Price	% chg	$/Sq Ft
Countywide		385	$398	1.9%	154	$238	-16.5%	$230
Camarillo	93010	25	$413	-1.1%	5	$365	12.3%	$236
Camarillo	93012	14	$540	6.0%	16	$269	-9.4%	$242
Fillmore	93015	7	$295	22.9%	1	$268	239.2%	$169
Moorpark	93021	23	$515	37.3%	6	$212	-34.9%	$210
Newbury Pk	91320	19	$633	2.4%	7	$151	-41.0%	$254
Oak Park	91377	6	$576	1.1%	4	$347	107.3%	$324
Oak View	93022	5	$240	4.3%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$162
Ojai	93023	15	$614	42.8%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$256
Oxnard	93030	14	$288	-17.9%	6	$283	-10.3%	$178
Oxnard	93033	27	$238	-15.2%	9	$169	47.0%	$190
Oxnard	93035	24	$528	6.1%	7	$242	-41.8%	$230
Oxnard	93036	17	$295	0.0%	6	$221	-19.7%	$202
Piru	93040	2	$86	-64.9%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$59
Pt Hueneme	93041	3	$305	2.3%	17	$160	-0.6%	$189
Santa Paula	93060	6	$278	-5.5%	3	$96	-8.6%	$257
Simi Valley	93063	33	$430	7.2%	10	$180	-35.5%	$234
Simi Valley	93065	36	$380	-7.5%	10	$251	-28.4%	$214
Somis	93066	2	$662	145.0%	n/a	n/a	n/a	$331
Thousand O	91360	25	$465	-10.2%	6	$223	-19.4%	$258
Thousand O	91362	18	$712	-1.2%	19	$340	-18.1%	$284
Ventura	93001	15	$249	-22.2%	8	$196	-44.8%	$312
Ventura	93003	24	$365	-21.5%	11	$220	-11.6%	$248
Ventura	93004	13	$379	3.8%	2	$225	-26.4%	$235
Westlke Vlge	91361	10	$680	13.3%	10	$330	0.6%	$296

This percentage also correlates to a higher percentage of foreclosures in areas where the has been the greatest decline in real estate values. As bankruptcy lawyer we have found a greater percentage in Bankruptcy filings in the cities with the gratest decline in real estate values. Forclosure litigation in the counties with the gretest decline has also increased. Chase has reported that the are being sued in over 10,000 cases across the country as reported in thier 10-k report this past Friday Feb 25,  2011.

Frankly, I don’t know where to begin. There’s just so much to say. It’s like a cornucopia of… well, lots of stuff to say. Bankers everywhere must be walking in circles, muttering to themselves, perhaps breaking out in hives. And I have to imagine that banking industry lobbyists are in some kind of trouble with their masters today, with phones being slammed down after CEOs have screamed:

“Damn it, how could you have let this happen? We gave you an open checkbook filled with blank checks… and you couldn’t even scare off, or buy off, the Arizona Senate… the Republican controlled Senate? And you call yourselves lobbyists?”
SLAM!

You see, the Arizona State Senate has passed Senate Bill 1259, sponsored by Michele Reagan, which would require the lenders that didn’t originate a loan to produce the full chain of title, or risk the foreclosure sale being voided. The bill now goes to the House for a vote, but with the Senate having passed it by an overwhelming margin of 28-2, it would seem that its passage is a fait accompli.

According to the Arizona Senate’s FACT SHEET FOR S.B.1259, foreclosures; proof of ownership, the Bill’s purpose is as follows:

“Provides a chain of ownership during foreclosure proceedings and allows reimbursement of lawyer fees for injunctions or court cases that fail to prove ownership.”

Well, I’ll be a monkey’s uncle. A Republican dominated Senate, you say?

You don’t say. Are you sure?

Quite sure.

So, are these Republicans in any way related to the Republicans in Washington D.C. or is the word “Republican” pronounced differently in Arizona and there’s no relation between the two groups?

(That was originally intended to be a rhetorical question, but if anyone feels capable of actually answering it, please… by all means… write to me… because I’m so confused.)

And attorneys fees to be awarded to the victor as well? Well, I’ll say… so, very good then. That means that homeowners who believe there is cause for a challenge to the servicer’s chain of title assertions, will have a much easier time finding and funding their legal representation, I would think that would be the case, anyway, don’t quote me…. or, no… go ahead and quote me, why the heck not?

And, in a related story… Arizona’s foreclosure defense plaintiff’s attorneys have been spotted across the state dancing in the streets with some of the state’s distressed homeowners. Many observers of this admittedly unusual phenomenon claim that for the most part, the attorneys and homeowners were doing the Hokey Pokey, with several people reporting that after rolling down their windows as they drove by, they heard the dancers exclaim: “That’s what it’s all about!”

The Senate’s S.B. 1259 FACT SHEET also listed five key “Provisions” of the bill:

1. Requires a non originating beneficiary on a deed of trust, to record a summary document that contains past names and addresses of prior beneficiaries, the date, recordation number and a description of the instrument that conveyed the interest of each beneficiary.

2. Requires the summary document to be recorded at the same time and place that the notice of trustee’s sale is recorded and that a copy be attached to any notice of trustee’s sale that is required.

3. Stipulates that failure to properly record the summary document that demonstrates evidence of title for the foreclosing beneficiary as of the date of the trustee’s sale will result in a voidable sale.

4. Allows any person with an interest in the trust property to file an action to void the trustee’s sale for failure to comply and is entitled to an award of attorney fees and damages, to include an award of attorney fees for any injunction or other provisional remedy related to the claim.

5. Becomes effective on the general effective date.

So, get this… I’m as curious as the bankers must be as to how in the world something like this happened. I mean, I’ve been accusing our country’s politicians of perpetual kowtowing to the banking lobby, and of having no first hand knowledge of what’s going on in real life, as far as the foreclosure crisis goes… and then the Arizona’s political types go and pass something like this? I mean… go figure, right?

So… how did it happen?

Well, funny story… it seems that State Senator Michele Reagan, a Republican of all things, who was first elected to serve in the Arizona House of Representatives in 2002, and in 2010 was elected to the Arizona State Senate… and who is Vice-Chairman of the Banking and Insurance Committee, and Chairman of the Committee on Economic Development and Jobs Creation… well it seems that she and her husband were sued by their servicer, Texas-based Colonial Savings FA, when they sent the bank a letter last July stating that they were planning to rescind their loan due to violations of the Truth in Lending Act or TILA .

According to Bloomberg’s story on the bill’s passage:

“They claim that the bank failed to disclose certain fees, and that the underwriter of their loan inflated their income by 12%, which violates the Truth in Lending Act.”

Colonial Savings then asked the court to declare that the couple were not entitled to rescind the loan, it should go without saying.

Reagan and her husband, David Gulino filed their own counter claim type lawsuit, in which they argued that they were manipulated into accepting an adjustable-rate mortgage, and that Colonial Savings, in true servicer-style, won’t tell them who owns their loan.

According to Bloomberg, Janet Walter, a spokeswoman for Colonial Savings, declined to comment, so I see no point in ringing her myself. And, Reagan’s attorney Beth Findsen, who told Bloomberg that she also helped write the bill, said the following:

“It makes Michele mad that the bank servicers will not disclose to a borrower the true noteholders,”

Findsen said. “She was taken aback that such basic information was not readily available.”

And I can imagine she would be taken aback. I know I would be… and in fact was… when I was first exposed to the problems being caused by Servicers, and I remain taken aback to this day.

Again, quoting from the Bloomberg story…

“If you foreclose on somebody you should have to tell them who owns the property,” Michele Reagan, who sponsored Senate Bill 1259, said in a telephone interview. “People have the right in this country to face their accusers.”

I like the way she thinks, don’t you? Even though, if I were to be picky about it, I’m not entirely sure that the reason for passing a law that requires the banksters to produce or report on all of the specific beneficiaries comprised in the Chain of Title has anything to do with our right to confront one’s accuser, as described in the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but if that’s what works, then let’s by all means run with it.

Strong opposition to the bill’s passage is coming from the Arizona Bankers Association, the Arizona Trustees Association, and Merscorp Inc., three great tastes that taste great together. MERS, in case you’ve been incarcerated in a Turkish prison over this past year, is an industry-owned organization that maintains a database containing more than 50% of all mortgages, that claims to be able to represent the trustees that conduct foreclosure auctions on behalf of lenders. Many vehemently disagree.

Paul Hickman, chief executive officer of the Arizona Bankers Association in Phoenix, showed up in the Bloomberg article, to issue the banking industry’s standard WARNING & THREAT package… the one they draw like a gun every time anything might change that affects them in any way.

“If Arizona passes this, it will be the only state in the union that will require a production of chain of title. States that pass these types of laws will be riskier environments to lend in and more difficult environments to get a loan in.”

Or, in other words… pass this bill and none of you in AZ will ever buy a home again because there will be no credit available to you. Hickman didn’t add the popular refrain about how the change will also paralyze the housing market, which will derail the recovery and basically end the world as we know it. Oooooo… scary bedtime stories for legislators.

And by the way, Mr. Hickman… the whole chain of title thing is already the law in Arizona and elsewhere. This new law just requires your membership to follow the existing laws and actually make sure the chain of title is not destroyed by banker incompetence or blatant disregard for the law.

So, why would your banker buddies having to follow the law transform a geographic locale into a “riskier environment?” Riskier for whom, exactly? Just tell the bankers that they may have to work past three and actually care about doing things in compliance with the law from now on, and everything will be fine… see… risk gone. Happy now?

Also, appearing alongside Hickman, the president of the Arizona Trustees Association in Phoenix, Richard Chambliss… I prefer to call him “Dick,” echoed the industry’s message as well:

“Reagan’s bill has both technical and conceptual problems, and could add to uncertainty over title.

Lenders that don’t file mortgage assignments with county recorders offices could face borrower challenges if the bill passes, even though the assignments weren’t required by state law.”

Dick Chambliss went on… sounding to me like he was getting a bit hot under the collar as he did…

“Is this bill intended to punish the lenders and screw up the process or address the problem that needs to be solved?”

Actually, two out of three, Dicky my boy… it’s definitely intended to punish the lenders, although nowhere near as severely as they should be punished, and now that we can all see how it upsets you and your peer group, we’re more confident than ever that it will also go a long way towards solving a couple of key problems inherent to the foreclosure crisis to-date as a result of servicer practices…

1. That servicers and lenders will actually have to follow the laws related to the chain of title, and therefore won’t be bringing fraudulent documents into court anymore.

2. That servicers that haven’t followed the laws and therefore that have broken the chain of title will now have an incentive to modify loans, instead of perpetuating illegal foreclosures.

But, look at the bright side… think of the money you’ll save on robo-signers, depositions, the creation of garbage alonges… you’ll come out ahead, I just know it.

Dick had yet another question to pose…

“What is it accomplishing by requiring that the history from the birth of the deed of trust to 20 assignments down the road have to be fully identified?”

Ooohh.. ohoo… I know this one, can I answer this one?

It’s a law to make sure that bankers tell the truth and follow our state and federal laws when foreclosing on someone’s home. Is that not an easy thing to see and understand? Even the banksters see the writing on the proverbial wall this time out, which is undoubtedly why they are so distressed at the prospect of the bill passing the House of Representatives and becoming law in Arizona.

See what I mean? Doesn’t “Dick” fit him better than Richard. For sure, right? I don’t even know the guy and I can tell from the way he talks that he’s definitely a “Dick”.

With Arizona being a non-judicial foreclosure state, meaning that property can be legally repossessed there without a court order, the banksters are not used to being asked such questions related to foreclosure and therefore are likely to be nowhere near as prepared to create fraudulent documents as they have been in the judicial foreclosure states where they appear to have a rich history of forgery going back many years.

Most mortgages that were originated during the last ten years were securitized and therefore supposedly assigned to trusts, with “pass-through certificates” entitling their holders to receive a percentage of the payment streams generated by the mortgages in the pool offered for sale to investors. As a result, many, many of these loans were sold more than three times before ever getting into the trust, assuming they ever arrived.

Banks using the Merscorp’s system typically don’t file assignments because the says that the ownership information is tracked electronically, whatever that actually means. Numerous judges don’t agree, most notably of late, Federal Bankruptcy Court Judge Grossman in New York whose opinion a few weeks ago, although non-binding for several reasons, removed all uncertainty as the argument as to whether MERS should be allowed to foreclose. He says, clearly… not a chance.

Walter E. Moak, who is apparently a bankruptcy attorney in Chandler, Arizona, was quoted in the Bloomberg story, saying that this Arizona legislation would make it easier for borrowers to negotiate loan workouts, and depending on the details, I might even agree. But, then the story quotes this bankruptcy lawyer as saying something that I would have to take issue with…

“Servicers often reject modification requests because the borrower doesn’t meet investor guidelines, even as they refuse to identify the investors,” Moak said.

“The person who has decision-making power is not the servicer, it’s the investors,” he said.

I realize that servicers say this a lot… I realize that many people believe this to be the case… I know that intellectually it may even makes sense … and I’ll even allow for some small percentage of cases where this statement is accurate to whatever degree… BUT… for the most part, Mr. Moak’s statements are at best incomplete, and in many instances wrong.

When a servicer tells a homeowner that they are unable to modify their loan due to something about not meeting investor guidelines or because the investor said they won’t modify loans… well, I’m sorry Mr. Moak, but assuming the loan has been securitized… it’s almost never true. At least nine times out of ten, they’re just plain old lying… or shall we say they’re embroidering… or perhaps we should call it, embellishing… no, let’s go back to just plain lying.

Pooling and Servicing Agreements, in the vast majority of cases, do not prohibit servicers from modifying a loan that is at risk of imminent default, and besides that… servicers don’t have a relationship with the investors… they report to a Master Servicer, who in turn reports to a Trustee, and that trustee could theoretically contact investors, but even that is extremely unlikely as the investors we’re talking about are often pension plans, insurance companies and sovereign wealth funds… not exactly the kind of investors you just pick up the phone and call… and then you would have to reach some sort of a majority… I mean… it’s just a ridiculous proposition.

Georgetown Law Professor, Adam Levitin, in conjunction with Tara Twomey of National Consumer Law Center, two of the country’s leading experts in the intricacies of mortgage servicing as related to loan modifications, have just published a 90-page research paper that represents “the first comprehensive overview of the residential mortgage servicing business,” and although the subject is nothing if not complex, some things are clear.

(I actually know Tara from the judicial conference held last April for the 9th Circuit judges… she and I were on the same panel speaking to the judges about the foreclosure crisis and the impacts of securitization.)

From the Levitin/Twomey research paper on mortgage servicing:

Mortgage servicing has begun to receive increased scholarly, popular, and political attention as a result of the difficulties faced by financially distressed homeowners when attempting to restructure their mortgages amid the home foreclosure crisis. In particular, the mortgage servicing industry has been identified as a central factor in the failure of the various government loan modification programs.

No one has a firm sense of the frequency of contractual limitations to modification for PLS. A small and unrepresentative sampling by Credit Suisse indicates that nearly all PLS PSAs permit modification when a loan is in default or default is reasonably foreseeable. Almost 60% of the sampled PSAs had no other restrictions to modification. Of the PSAs with additional restrictions, 27% capped loan modifications at 5% of the loan pool, either by count or balance.

The PSA sets forth two exceptions to this general limitation on loan modification. First, for defaulted loans, the PSA provides that the servicer may write down principal or extend the term of the loan. Thus, it appears that the servicer may write down the principal on a defaulted or distressed loan or may extend the term of the loan.

Look, the fact is that servicers lie all the time to the homeowners who apply to have their loans modified, and I’ve got a front row seat to that behavior almost every single day. They want to foreclose because they make more money when they foreclose, and if they can say something to get a homeowner to give up, they will… and they do… all the time. I can’t count the number of times when I’ve told a homeowner to not give up and the result has been a modified loan.

If a servicer tells me that the sky is blue, I go outside and check for myself… and that’s all I have to say about that.

See why I have to check for myself?

Here’s the conslusion from the Levitin/Twomey paper…

Conclusion

This Article presents the first comprehensive overview of the residential mortgage servicing business and shows that mortgage servicing suffers from an endemic principal-agent conflict between investors and servicers.

Securitization separates the ownership interest in a mortgage loan and the management of the loan. Securitization structures incentivize servicers to act in ways that do not track investors‘ interests, and these structures limit investors‘ ability to monitor servicer behavior. Monitoring proxies, such as ratings agencies and trustees, are themselves subject to perverse incentives and are limited in their ability to monitor servicer behavior.

As a result, servicers are frequently incentivized to foreclose on defaulted loans rather than restructure the loan, even when the restructuring would be in the investors‘ interest. The costs of this principal-agent conflict are not borne solely by MBS investors. The principal-agent conflict in residential mortgage servicing also has an enormous negative externality for homeowners, communities, and the housing market.

The principal-agent problem in residential mortgage servicing could be addressed by restructuring servicing compensation. Other types of securitizations use measures that mitigate the principal-agent conflict between servicers and investors.

There are costs to applying these measures to residential mortgage securitization, which are likely to be borne partly by borrowers in the form of higher mortgage costs. Yet, correcting the principal agent problem in mortgage servicing is critical for mitigating the negative social externalities from uneconomic foreclosures and ensuring greater protection for investors and homeowners.

And if I can wrap that conclusion up in a tidy little package with a bow on top, it says that it’s the mortgage servicers who are letting our nation down and causing unfathomable amounts of pain to our country’s homeowners across all socio-economic demographic segments.

The Bloomberg story also quoted Christopher L. Peterson, a law professor at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, who said that he thought the legislation would, “test the completeness and accuracy of bank records. The law could also have the unintended consequence of pushing more lenders to modify loans rather than face a voided sale.”

“I like it because it forces the financial institution into providing information about who owns loans and rebuild transparency,” Peterson said. “It makes it significantly more difficult to foreclose if they don’t have good records of the history of ownership of the loan.”

A FEW CLOSING THOUGHTS I HOPE YOU’LL CONSIDER…

1. In its simplest form, this is a bill that would create a law that would say that bankers have to follow our existing laws before foreclosing on someone’s home. And yet the bankers don’t like it and say that if they were forced to follow our laws, we would have a harder time getting loans.

2. And to that I would say: Fine… if we have a harder time getting loans, then it occurs to me that we’ll owe less money and you bankers will have a harder time making as much money. So who’s really going to suffer here if this becomes a law?

3. Bankers argued throughout the last 20 years that no laws should restrict sub-prime lending because then lower income Americans wouldn’t have access to credit, which is a lot like saying that poor neighborhoods need access to LOAN SHARKS.

4. Why wouldn’t every state in the country have a law like this one on the books? It’s a law that makes banks follow the law. How could that be a bad thing? I’d like to encourage everyone to write to their state representatives and tell them that you want them to enact such a law.

5. The only reason this bill is being pushed through the Arizona legislature is that one of that state’s senators actually tried to rescind her own predatory loan and found out first hand what it’s like to have to deal with a servicer. Is she an irresponsible borrower? I don’t hear anyone calling her names, asking her if she’s living beyond her means. WHY NOT?

6. What should we do, wait for more of our elected representatives to fall fare enough down the economic ladder so that they too have the experience of dealing with a servicer? And only then we should stop the pain and suffering being caused by the foreclosure crisis. I’ve said it before, but our elected representatives have long-since forgotten what it’s like to not be rich. They need to be reminded…

I have a call in to Sen. Michele Reagan’s office in Phoenix and I hope to hear back from her. But until I do, there’s only one thing that’s making me feel uneasy about S.B. 1259… and here it is…

Remember the first and second provisions I listed, from the FACT SHEET:

1. Requires a non originating beneficiary on a deed of trust, to record a summary document that contains past names and addresses of prior beneficiaries, the date, recordation number and a description of the instrument that conveyed the interest of each beneficiary.

2. Requires the summary document to be recorded at the same time and place that the notice of trustee’s sale is recorded and that a copy be attached to any notice of trustee’s sale that is required.

Yeah, well you see the 800lb. gorilla now, right? Is this bill saying that all the bankers will be required to do under the new law is type up a list of what shouldn’t happen but didn’t… without having to prove anything? Because if that’s the case, then I just wasted a huge amount of time writing about something that will soon be proven useless, and I’m not happy about that possibility at all.

I mean, typing up a chronology of what was supposed to happen and when, even though it didn’t… strikes me as being much easier than having a robo-signer sign 10,000 lost note affidavits each month

So, all I can say is… I’m going to find out for sure tomorrow by talking to the Senator’s office, and until then I’m going to pretend that I never even noticed that little issue, and pray like hell that this isn’t just another Charlie Brown run at that same stupid football.

From the Bloomberg article:

Do you want to get more involved in fighting for a fair economy? Do you want to stop the big banks from profiting from their crimes? From faith-based to community-based, we have more than 30 groups in over a dozen states working locally and nationally on this issue and they would love to hear from you! Check out the list below (organized by state) to learn and connect with the group best for you.

Week of Feb. 21: Join the delegations of homeowners and community leaders delivering the Crime Shouldn’t Pay petition to the Attorneys Generals this week! 9 states are participating, including: California, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, North Carolina and Ohio. If you live in one of these states and want to join, scroll down below. Groups working on organizing the delegation in your state will be marked with a red star. * Call or email the group to get exact time and location information. Let them know, “I want to join the petition delegation this week.”

California

* Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (State-wide)
* Los Angeles: 213-863-4548
Sacramento: 916-288-8829
Oakland/Bay Area: 510-269-4692
San Jose: 408-549-1230
San Mateo: 650-515-3155
San Diego: 619-754-9407

* PICO California (State-wide)
Sacramento, CA
(916) 447-7959

* Contra Costa Interfaith Sponsoring Committee
Contra Costa County, CA
(925) 313-0206

Inland Congregations United for Change
San Bernardino & Riverside Counties, CA
(909) 383-1134

L.A. Voice
Los Angeles, CA
(213) 384-7404

* Oakland Community Organizations
Oakland, CA
(510) 639-1444

Peninsula Interfaith Action
San Mateo County, CA
(650) 592-9181

Colorado
Colorado Progressive Coalition (State-wide)
Offices in Denver, Greeley, and Pueblo, CO
Denver: 303-866-0908
Pueblo:719-406-3716
Greeley: 970-378-6560

Florida
* PICO United Florida (State-wide)
Orlando, FL
(407) 241-0605

Federation of Congregations United to Serve
Orange County, FL
(407) 849-5031

Congregations for Community Action
Melbourne & Palm Bay, FL
(321) 254-1595

Iowa

* Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement (State-wide)
Des Moines, IA
515-255-0800

Idaho
Idaho Community Action Network
Boise, ID
208-385-9146

Illinois
Illinois People’s Action (State-wide)
Bloomington, IL
309-827-9627

Lakeview Action Coalition
Chicago, IL
773-549-1947

South Austin Coalition Community Council
Chicago, IL
773-287-4570/9957

Kansas
Sunflower Community Action (State-wide)
Wichita, KS
316-264-9972

Massachusetts
* Alliance to Develop Power (State-wide)
Springfield, MA
413-739-7233

Brockton Interfaith Community
Brockton, MA
(508) 587-9550

* Massachusetts Communities Action Network (State-wide)
Boston, MA
(617) 822-1499

Maine
Maine Peoples Alliance (State-wide)
Offices in Portland, Bangor, and Lewiston, ME
Portland: 207-797-0967
Bangor: 207-990-0672
Lewiston: 207-782-7876

Michigan

Michigan Organizing Project (State-wide)
Kalamazoo, MI
269-344-1967

Harriet Tubman Center
Detroit, MI
(313) 549-0421

Minnesota
Take Action Minnesota (State-wide)
Saint Paul, MN
651-641-6199

Missouri
Grass Roots Organizing (State-wide)
Mexico, MO
573-581-9595

Communities Creating Opportunity
Kansas City, MO
(816) 444-5585

Montana
Montana Organizing Project (State-wide)
Missoula and Billings, MT
Email: sheena@nwfco.org

Nevada
Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada (State-wide)
Las Vegas and Reno, NV
Reno:
775-348-7557
Las Vegas V:
702-791-1965

New York
Northwest Bronx Community & Clergy Coalition
Bronx, NY
718-584-0515

Brooklyn Congregations United
Brooklyn, NY
718 287-4334

People United for Sustainable Housing
Buffalo, NY
716-884-0356

* Syracuse United Neighbors
Syracuse, NY
315-476-7475

Ohio
* Citizens United For Action (State-wide)
Cincinnati, OH
513-541-4109

Northeast Ohio Alliance for Hope
Cleveland, OH
216-834-2324

Working In Neighborhoods Action Organizing Project (State-wide)
Cincinnati, OH
513-541-4109

Oregon
Oregon Action (State-wide)
Portland and Medford, OR
Portland: 503-282-6588
Medford: 541-772-4029

Washington
Washington Community Action Network (State-wide)
Seattle, WA
206-389-0050 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 206-389-0050