New Lawyers Face Probes, Pop Up at Other Firms (via Foreclosureblues)

Foreclosure Fraud – New Lawyers Face Probes, Pop Up at Other Firms Today, December 26, 2010, 33 minutes ago | Foreclosure Fraud New lawyers face probes, pop up at other firms By Christine Stapleton and Kimberly Miller Palm Beach Post Staff Writer Recently out of law school and looking for work, scores of young Florida attorneys found steady paychecks in burgeoning firms whose business is based on repossessing the American dream. Today, more than … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

ST. PETERSBURG TIMES SAYS- YOUR FIGHT IS TOP 10 STORY OF 2010 (via Foreclosureblues)

ST. PETERSBURG TIMES SAYS- YOUR FIGHT IS TOP 10 STORY OF 2010! Today, December 26, 2010, 2 hours ago | Matthew D. Weidner, Esq. Today’s edition of the St. Petersburg Times recognized the top ten people who made a difference in 2010, and make no mistake about it… if you’re reading this blog…you are one of those who made a difference! In 2010, Florida’s economy struggled with a growing housing crisis and historically high unemployment. • Locally, t … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

Virginia puts homeowners on fast track to foreclosure (via Foreclosureblues)

Virginia puts homeowners on fast track to foreclosure Today, December 26, 2010, 3 hours ago | Neil Garfield COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary Message from sender… Garfield’s Note: The sender is from Harvard University. Here is a clear example of Wall Street money at work on the state level getting legislators to trash their state in exchange for money, gifts and other promises. Virginia has now … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

Judge's decision set aside, canceled, voided, avoided, discharged, nullified… (via Foreclosureblues)

Judge's decision set aside, canceled, voided, avoided, discharged, nullified… by Slade Smith | 2010/12/09 | You may not remember the court case IndyMac v. Yano-Horoski by name, but there's probably a good chance that you remember the story. This was the case where a judge wiped out a mortgage and gave the defaulted homeowners their home free and clear because IndyMac (now part of OneWest) had acted in such bad faith in dealing with the homeown … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

Banks Don’t Have to Follow the Rules in Lee County, Says Judge Starnes (via Foreclosureblues)

Banks Don’t Have to Follow the Rules in Lee County, Says Judge Starnes by Mike on December 11, 2010 This ruling is a disgrace: Lee County Judge Hugh Starnes has ruled that banks in foreclosure cases don’t have to follow court rules. At a recent foreclosure hearing, the defense attorney (Conrad Willkomm) argued that the bank had violated an important evidentiary rule: the bank was relying on its business records, but no one swore that those record … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

New Tactic of Suing Lawyers Defending Homeowners Not Brilliant Strategy (via Foreclosureblues)

New Tactic of Suing Lawyers Defending Homeowners Not Brilliant Strategy Today, December 11, 2010, 9 hours ago | findsenlaw Nationwide Title Clearing, the company that brought us three widely publicized depositions of employees describing an assembly line process of signing assignments and affidavits, is now suing Matt Weidner, Florida foreclosure defense attorney, claiming they were defamed by his characterization of the signers as being robotic. … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

ACLU – Foreclosure “Robo-signers” Under Scrutiny | Foreclosure Fraud Fighters Under Attack (via Foreclosureblues)

ACLU – Foreclosure “Robo-signers” Under Scrutiny | Foreclosure Fraud Fighters Under Attack Today, December 11, 2010, 3 hours ago | Foreclosure Fraud ACLU Appeals Gag Order on Homeowner’s Attorney FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE December 9, 2010 CONTACT: (786) 363-2737 or media@aclufl.org SARASOTA, Fla. – The ACLU of Florida, on behalf of attorney Christopher Forrest and The Forrest Law Firm, today asked Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal to reverse … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

The Economy Cannot Recover Until the Big Banks Are Broken Up (via Foreclosureblues)

The Economy Cannot Recover Until the Big Banks Are Broken Up Today, December 11, 2010, 27 minutes ago | noreply@blogger.com (George Washington) A lot of people still haven't heard that the economy cannot recover until the big banks are broken up. But as everyone from Paul Krugman to Simon Johnson has noted, the banks are so big and politically powerful that they have bought the politicians and captured the regulators. In addition, as Fortu … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

WEIDNER: BIGGEST RICO CASE ON EARTH (via Foreclosureblues)

WEIDNER: BIGGEST RICO CASE ON EARTH Posted on October 19, 2010 by Neil Garfield by Matt Weidner on IRS Form 938 Sometimes this all becomes a bit too overwhelming, trying to unravel this whole foreclosure cataclysm. This is so far beyond the simple situation where a borrower borrows money from a bank and doesn’t pay….that bank is clearly entitled to their money back. I’m a fairly bright guy with a good education and a fair to ‘middlin grasp on co … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

The Cause of the Foreclosure Crisis (via Foreclosureblues)

The Cause of the Foreclosure Crisis Today, December 12, 2010, 2 hours ago | Mark Stopa David Bornstein of the New York Times penned a nice article today called When Lenders Won’t Listen. Here’s the part that really jumped off the page at me… After describing the injustices experienced by several homeowners in their experiences with lenders, a competing view was presented: There are those of us who were raised with the idea that if you make a bar … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

Legal Aid for Homeowners: Perhaps the only thing on the planet for which TARP funds CANNOT be used. (via Foreclosureblues)

Legal Aid for Homeowners: Perhaps the only thing on the planet for which TARP funds CANNOT be used. Yesterday, December 11, 2010, 9:32:56 PM | Mandelman The Nation is reporting a story about Treasury Secretary Tim “Transparency” Geithner that proves that he actually is a “by-the-books” guy who is very concerned about protecting the taxpayer’s money from being spent in unauthorized ways. I’m not kidding about that… that’s what the story shows. W … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

Debt settlement: A costly escape not always the best solution

Negotiating away your bills is legal, but it may not be your best solution. And sometimes, hiring a professional to help you isn’t as good an idea as doing it yourself.

If you’re drowning in unpaid bills and desperately looking for a way out, chances are you’ve come across an offer that sounds something like this: For a fee, a professional debt-settlement company will help rid you of your debt for as little as half the amount you owe.

Sounds like a scam? Or like you’re finally getting the break you deserve?

The answer may surprise you. Debt settlement is, in fact, a perfectly legal solution for consumers who are in deep and seeking an alternative to bankruptcy. But having a debt-settlement company do the legwork for you is fraught with risk, not to mention outrageous fees.

Here’s what you need to know about debt settlement and the companies that claim to do it for you:

The basics

It’s a little-known fact that when you fall further and further behind on your payments, creditors would much rather agree to settle your debts than have you file bankruptcy and not get paid at all, says debt expert Gerri Detweiler, author of “The Ultimate Credit Handbook”.

In exchange for an agreed-upon one-time payment — typically, between 20% and 75% of what you owe — the creditor forgives the rest of your debt and starts reporting it to the credit bureaus as settled. Meanwhile, you’ll need to put money aside toward the settlement and stop making payments to your creditors. On your credit reports, the balances of settled debts will show $0. However, any previous history of delinquent payments or charge-offs will remain on your report.

Not surprisingly, creditors don’t like to advertise debt settlement. They also make it an extremely difficult solution to pursue. As a rule, creditors won’t negotiate with consumers who are current on their bills, often refusing to discuss settlements unless you’re at least three to six months behind, explains Detweiler. That means dodging collections calls while trying to save up the cash for a settlement.

If you’re working with several creditors — you’d typically tackle the debts one at a time as you collect the money to pay them off — it’s hard, if not impossible to know which creditor might agree to settle earlier than others. “There’s an art to it,” Detweiler notes.

The problem with debt-settlement companies

With that in mind, it would be great to have an experienced, knowledgeable debt-settlement company hold your hand through the process, right? Not really.

Once you sign up with a company, chances are you’ll pay dearly for its services, says Deanne Loonin, a staff attorney with the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) who has investigated the practices of debt-settlement companies.

Outrageous fees

Just how much will you pay? Good luck finding that out.

“I’ve never seen a company that’s given a straight answer,” says Loonin. The industry’s fees and fee structures are all over the place. Some companies charge a percentage of the total debt — typically 15% or 18% — that’s paid before you start accumulating savings. Others charge a percentage of the debt savings — usually 25% — once you settle, plus an initial sign-up fee and monthly service charges. Then there are those that charge a flat monthly fee throughout the length of the program.

Even the industry admits figuring out the costs is a challenge. “I have seen every kind of (fee) model you can think of,” says Jenna Keehnen, the executive director of the U.S. Organizations for Bankruptcy Alternatives (USOBA), an industry trade group. “It’s very confusing.”

Worse than confusing, it’s prohibitively expensive, says Katie Porter, a professor of bankruptcy law at the University of Iowa. She recently came across an offer to settle $33,551 in debt that projected a $5,032 service fee that was to be paid in monthly installments. Only after the service fee was paid off, two years later, did the client actually start saving for the settlement.

“That $5,000 buys a substantial amount of attorney time,” she says. “You can get a consumer (or bankruptcy) attorney to represent you and help with your debt problems for a lot less than that.”

Questionable services

What does a debt-settlement company do for you? In theory, it’s supposed to help you negotiate your debts. In practice though, that doesn’t really happen, says Porter. During the two or more years that you’re saving money — typically in an escrow account that the debt-settlement company has access to — the company does nothing but withdraw fees.

“A lot of consumers think they’ve taken care of the problem after contacting a company, but the reality is the debt-settlement company hasn’t settled anything in the beginning,” Porter says.
The companies also claim that they’ll help you dodge collections calls. But referring collections calls to your debt-settlement company often backfires, says Leslie Linfield, the executive director at the Institute for Financial Literacy, an organization that provides pre-bankruptcy counseling.

“Many creditors, once they know a client is working with a debt-settlement company, will escalate the account,” she notes. That means sending it to a collections agency sooner or even suing you. And when a creditor takes legal action, the debt-settlement companies drop the account: They don’t have the right to give legal advice or represent you in court.

High dropout rates

While there’s no independent research on the average success rate of debt-settlement programs, anecdotal evidence shows many consumers drop out before the company reaches a settlement with their creditors, Linfield says. “As you talk to bankruptcy attorneys you’ll hear horror stories of clients who paid thousands of dollars to a company and they’re still in the exact same place,” she says.

Consider what happened at National Consumer Council, which was shut down by the Federal Trade Commission in 2004 on accusations of falsely claiming nonprofit status. The company’s court records show that only 1.4% of the consumers who signed up for the program ever completed it. Nearly half — 42.9% — dropped out, paying an average of $1,780 in fees and saving $966 in their escrow accounts.

Secrets of the trade

Here’s what debt-settlement companies might not tell you:

Debt settlement may not be right for you. Debt settlement is a niche solution that’s right only for a small segment of the population. You could be a good candidate for debt settlement if you’re heading toward bankruptcy but don’t qualify for filing Chapter 7, Phelan explains. (Under Chapter 7, most of your unsecured debts are written off, but you’ll most likely have to sell some property including your home). “Most people who can qualify for Chapter 7 in all likelihood lack the cash flow to make debt settlement work for them,” he says. Debt settlement, in other words, might be a viable alternative to Chapter 13, which sets up a three- to five-year schedule with your creditors to repay your debts.

Likewise, if you can scrape up the cash to pay off your debts in a debt-management program where you work with a debt-management company to pay off your balances in full but with lower interest rates, then debt settlement isn’t the best solution.

Your credit will suffer. Creditors don’t settle unless you’re severely behind on your payments. That means one thing: Debt settlement is damaging to your credit. Just how damaging it is depends on your track record. If you’re already behind on payments, your credit will suffer less than if you’ve managed to avoid delinquencies and credit charge-offs.

You could get sued. With bankruptcy, creditors have to stop collections efforts as soon as you file. That’s not the case with debt settlement. Even if you inform your creditors of your efforts to settle, they won’t stop trying to collect, Phelan says. Worst-case scenario, they could sue you for the amounts you owe. Should that occur the only way to avoid a black mark on your credit record would be to pay off the debt in full.

There are tax consequences. Debt settlement is a taxable event. Any forgiven balance that exceeds $600 is taxable income, says Linfield. “Sometimes that tax event can put people in worse shape than they were in to begin with,” she says. Consider this: If your tax rate is 15%, $5,000 of forgiven debt will carry a $750 tax liability. That’s a debt that the Internal Revenue Service won’t forgive. One exception: If you’re insolvent — namely your assets are less than your liabilities — you can petition the IRS to waive that tax liability by filing Form 982.

Their services might be illegal. Though the laws regulating debt-settlement companies vary greatly by state, it’s worth noting that 12 states prohibit for-profit debt management. Since debt-settlement companies are for-profit entities, they’re not allowed to practice there. Those states are Arizona, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, West Virginia and Wyoming.

If you live in one of those states, remember: It is illegal for for-profit debt-settlement companies to contact you and work with you, even if they’re based in another state. “Many companies do it anyway,” Linfield says. “And that’s a big red flag.”

Securitization Workshop in Sacramento, December 11, 2010… for Attorneys & Other Interested Parties (via Foreclosureblues)

Securitization Workshop in Sacramento, December 11, 2010… for Attorneys & Other Interested Parties Today, December 06, 2010, 4 hours ago | Mandelman On December 11th, 2010, in Sacramento, California, DTC Systems, Inc. and Secure Document Research is holding a Securitization Workshop designed to help attorneys get quickly up-tp-speed on the topic of mortgage securitization as related to the financial and resulting foreclosure crises that conti … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

A question we get alot – can my house be saved after the foreclosure sale? Answer – Maybe, and it is expensive. (via Foreclosureblues)

A question we get alot – can my house be saved after the foreclosure sale? Answer – Maybe, and it is expensive. Today, December 06, 2010, 7 hours ago | Foreclosure Defense Attorney Steve Vondran If your house sells, you are in a tough spot in California and Arizona. Normally, we would need to see if there was any fraud/robosigner in the sub of trustee. It is tough to reverse a sale where the notice of default and notice of sale and other document … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

California to join multi-state investigation into foreclosures

By Dale Kasler
dkasler@sacbee.com

Published: Tuesday, Oct. 12, 2010 – 10:56 am

Last Modified: Tuesday, Oct. 12, 2010 – 1:17 pm

California officials are joining a multi-state effort to investigate mortgage “robo-signers” – employees of lending institutions who’ve approved foreclosures without reading the documents.

Jim Finefrock, a spokesman for California Attorney General Jerry Brown, said today his office will participate in the investigation. The effort is to be led by Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller.

Brown has previously called on all lenders to halt foreclosures in California temporarily. He also issued demands to two lenders – Ally and JP Morgan Chase – to stop California foreclosures until they can show they’re following state law.

Finefrock said Brown’s lawyers are in talks with Ally and Chase. California law prohibits lenders from issuing default notices – the first step toward foreclosure – until they’ve made serious efforts to contact homeowners to see if their loans can be modified. The law applies to mortgages issued from 2003 to 2007.

Now that he is Governor he probably will not do anything. He has to “work” with the banks to help get California out of it fiscal mess. When running for office you must criticize the status quo and vow to change it if elected. Once elected you must preserve the status quo. Its right out of the election play book.

Saving your home

I. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

A. WHETHER TO REINSTATE, DEFEND OR GIVE-UP

By far the most important decision that must be initially made is whether the property is worth saving. This is often ignored and wasted effort is expended when there is no “equity” (realistic fair market value minus all debt, liens, property taxes, anticipated foreclosure costs, late fees, and selling costs) in the property.

The options are as follows:

1. Reinstatement. Pay the costs and late charges and stop the process. In most non-judicial foreclosures this is permitted up until the date of sale. In Washington the lender must allow reinstatement 10 days prior to the sale date. See RCW 61.24. Often a lender or relative will loan necessary funds and take a subordinate lien on the property to do so. The makes sense only if the new payments are within the means of the debtor.

2. Sell the Property. If there is equity, but no ability to reinstate, then immediately list and sell the property to recoup equity.

3. Obtain Foreclosure Relief. Most government insured loans (if, VA, FHA) have programs allowing (or requiring) lenders to assist defaulting borrowers. See discussion under §V infra. Check into these options immediately.

4. Give Up. This is actually an option as most state laws permit the debtor to remain in possession during the foreclosure process and redemption period rent-free. Most laws, especially in non-judicial foreclosure states – do not allow (or at least limit) deficiencies. Debtors contemplating bankruptcy should take advantage of homestead rights and redemption rights. If there is no equity or negative equity and no ability to make payments, there is no economic reason to try to avoid foreclosure.

5. Defend the Foreclosure. After all of the above have been considered, defense of the foreclosure may be warranted. This outline discusses some defenses that may result in re-instatement of the mortgage or recovery of equity.

B. OFFENSIVE STRATEGY

In addition to defenses that may be raised, there may be affirmative claims that can be brought against the lender which should be immediately determined and raised in a counterclaim or set-off or, in the case of non-judicial foreclosure, brought by separate suit and coupled with an injunction against continuing the non-judicial foreclosure. These claims can also be brought in bankruptcy. See, e.g. In re Perkins, 106 BR 863 (1989).

A few examples of affirmative claims:

1. Truth-in-Lending Act Violations. Often lenders will hand the debtor a claim, which can turn a debt into an asset. If the Truth-in-Lending disclosure statement is less than one year old, there may be damage claims for improper disclosure. See, 15 U.S.C. 1635. More importantly, there may be a right of rescission, which can be exercised up to three years after the closing resulting in a tremendous advantage to the borrower. See, e.g., Beach v. Ocwen Fed Bank, 118 S. Ct. 1408 (1998).

2. Usury. If a state usury law applies (usually on seller financed real estate), this can parlay a debt into an asset. Federal pre-emption generally prevents this, but there are exceptions. See, RCW 19.52.

3. Mortgage Broker Liability, Lender Liability, Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices. Numerous claims that arise in the mortgage financing context give rise to set-offs that can allow negotiation out of the foreclosure. See e.g. Mason v. Mortgage America, 114 Wn. 2d 842 (1990). Intentional breach of contract gives rise to emotional stress damages. See, Cooperstein v. Van Natter, 26 Wn. App. 91 (1980); Theis v. Federal Finance Co., 4 Wn. App. 146 (1971).

Under a new federal statute to regulate high interest, predatory loans, Congress enacted in 1994 the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (effective on loans after October 1, 1995). This amendment to the Truth-In-Lending Act requires greater disclosures in loans where a number of factors exist such as, points exceeding 8% and other excessive costs. Penalties include enhanced damages and rescission. See 15 U.S.C. 1602(u) and 15 U.S.C. 1640(a).

The Mortgage Broker Practices Act, RCW 31.04 and the Consumer Protection Act also have enhanced damages and attorney fees.

II. DEFENDING NONJUDICIAL DEED OF TRUST FORECLOSURES

A. INTRODUCTION

The deed of trust is currently one of the most common devices for securing conventional and government insured or guaranteed real estate loans. The deed of trust may be typically foreclosed either judicially as a mortgage or non-judicially. Set forth below are the jurisdictional variations in security agreements and the most common foreclosure procedures^{^[1]}. Nonjudicial foreclosure is allowed in approximately one-half of the states. Also listed are the states that permit nonjudicial foreclosure and their relevant statutes^{^[2]}. With nonjudicial foreclosure, it is not necessary to utilize the court for the foreclosure sale unless a deficiency judgment is sought. Nonjudicial foreclosure is often the preferred method of foreclosure because it is more efficient than judicial foreclosure and quicker. The nonjudicial foreclosure procedure has been found constitutional between private parties on the basis that there is no state action^{^[3]}, but there is a serious question as to whether the government can direct a lender to use a nonjudicial procedure^{^[4]}.

B. PROCEDURE FOR RESTRAINING TRUSTEE’S SALE

Anyone having an interest in the real property security, including the borrower, may restrain the non-judicial foreclosure of a deed of trust on any proper ground^{^[5]}. Proper grounds for enjoining a trustee’s sale include: (1) there is no default on the obligation, Salot v. Wershow, 157 CA.2d 352, 320 P.2d 926 (1958), (2) the deed of trust has been reinstated, (3) the notice of default, notice of sale, or proposed conduct of the sale is defective, Crummer v. Whitehead, 230 CA.2d 264, 40 CR 826 (1964), (4) the lender has waived the right to foreclose, (5) a workout/settlement has been agreed to, (6) equitable reasons that would entitle a debtor to close a sale of the property or complete a refinance, (7) to enforce government relief programs, and trustee misconduct. Finally, there may be defenses to the debt (i.e. usury, truth in lending violations, misrepresentation of the seller, breach of warranty by the seller, etc.) or set-offs, which substantially reduce the debt.

1. Time for Filing Action

The action can presumably be filed any time before the scheduled trustee’s sale, but the sooner the better. Under Washington law, if one seeks to restrain the sale, five days notice must be given to the trustee and the beneficiary. See the Revised Code of Washington (hereinafter “RCW”) 61.24.130(2); Note, supra, footnote 4. A trustor in California has at least one hundred and ten days (after the recording of the notice of default) to seek to enjoin the sale. In California, fifteen days are required for noticing a motion for a preliminary injunction. See CCP section 1005.

2. Effect of Lis Pendens

Filing a lis pendens at the time the lawsuit is commenced constitutes constructive notice to purchasers and others dealing with the property of the claims and defenses asserted by the plaintiff^{^[6]}. Even if the plaintiff does not seek an order restraining the trustee’s sale or a restraining order is denied, purchasers at the sale acquire the property subject to the pending litigation^{^[7]}.

3. Notice of Application for Restraining Order

In Washington, a person seeking to restrain a trustee’s sale must give five days notice to the trustee setting forth when, where and before whom the application for the restraining order or injunction will be made. See RCW 61.24.130(2). See also Civil Rules 6 and 81 of the Civil Rules for Superior Court regarding computation of time.

4. Payment Obligation

When a preliminary injunction is sought, many states require the petitioner to post an injunction bond to protect the lender from injury because of the injunction^{^[8]}. Some courts require the party seeking the injunctive relief to pay to the court the amount due on the obligation^{^[9]}. If the amount due on the obligation is in dispute, most courts will require the borrower to tender at least what he/she acknowledges is due^{^[10]}.

Under Washington law, if the default is in making the monthly payment of principal, interest and reserves, the court requires such sum to be paid into the court every thirty days. See RCW 61.24.130(1)(a). A practice tip: even if local law does not require this, it would advantageous to offer to make ongoing payments. Then the creditor loses nothing during the pendency of the suit. In the case of default on a balloon payment, the statute requires that payment of the amount of the monthly interest at the new default rate shall be made to the court clerk every thirty days. See RCW 61.24.130 (1)(b). If the property secured by the deed of trust is an owner occupied single family dwelling, then the court must require the party seeking to restrain the trustee’s sale to make the monthly payment of principal interest and reserves to the clerk of the court every 30 days. See RCW 61.24.130(1).

Although the amount that the party seeking to restrain the trustee’s sale must pay as a condition of continuing the restraining order would ordinarily be the regular monthly payment on the obligation, RCW 61.24.130(1)(a), when there is a balloon payment past due, RCW 61.24.130(1)(b) provides:

In the case of default in making payments of an obligation then fully payment by its terms, such sum shall be the amount of interest accruing monthly on said obligation at the non-default rate, paid to the clerk of the court every thirty days.

This is consistent with the intent to preserve the status quo while the lawsuit is pending and provide security only for prospective harm.

Failure to seek a restraint may constitute a waiver of all rights to challenge a sale for defects whenever the party who received notice of the right to enjoin the trustees sale, had actual or constructive knowledge of a defense to foreclosure prior to the sale, and failed to bring an action to enjoin the sale. The doctrine of waiver would thus preclude an action by a party to set aside a completed trustee’s sale^{^[11]}. Finally, RCW 61.24.130 allows the court to consider the grantor’s equity in determining the amount of security. This would significantly help a borrower avoid a costly bond. An appraisal showing equity should persuade a court that the lender is protected while the underlying dispute is resolved in court.

When a party knew or should have known that they might have a cause of action to set aside the sale but unreasonably delayed commencing the action, causing damage to the defendant, the doctrine of laches may bar the action^{^[12]}.

C. DEFENSES BASED ON TRUSTEE MISCONDUCT

Most defenses that are available in judicial foreclosures are also available in nonjudicial foreclosures of deeds of trust. Defenses may include violation of Truth-in-Lending, usury statutes, other consumer protection legislation, or special requirements when the government is the lender, insurer, or guarantor, infra. Other defenses are unique to nonjudicial foreclosure of deeds of trust because they relate to the particular obligations imposed upon trustees who conduct the sale of the real property.

1. Breach of Fiduciary Duties

A trustee selling property at a nonjudicial foreclosure sale has strict obligations imposed by law. In most states, “a trustee is treated as a fiduciary for both the borrower and the lender.”^{^[13]}

In McPherson v. Purdue, 21 Wn. App. 450, 452-3, 585 P.2d 830 (1978), the court approved the following statement describing the duties of a trustee from California law:

Among those duties is that of bringing “the property to the hammer under every possible advantage to his cestui que trusts,” using all reasonable diligence to obtain the best price.

In Cox v. Helenius, 103 Wn.2d 383, 388, 693 P.2d 683 (1985), the Washington Supreme Court adopted the following view:

Because the deed of trust foreclosure process is conducted without review or confrontation by a court, the fiduciary duty imposed upon the trustee is “exceedingly high”.

The court went on to illuminate four duties of the trustee:

(1) The trustee is bound by his office to use diligence in presenting the sale under every possible advantage to the debtor as well as the creditor;

(2) The trustee must take reasonable and appropriate steps to avoid sacrifice of the debtor’s property and his interest;

(3) Once a course of conduct is undertaken that is reasonably calculated to instill a sense of reliance thereon by the grantor, that course of conduct can not be abandoned without notice to the grantor; and

(4) When an actual conflict of interest arises between the roles of attorney for the beneficiary and trustee, the attorney should withdraw from one position, thus preventing a breach of fiduciary duty.

In Blodgett v. Martsch, 590 P.2d 298 (UT 1978), it was stated that “the duty of the trustee under a trust deed is greater than the mere obligation to sell the pledged property, . . . it is a duty to treat the trustor fairly and in accordance with a high punctilio of honor.” The Supreme Court in Blodgett went even further and found that the breach of this confidential duty may be regarded as constructive fraud^{^[14]}.

The general rule is summarized in Nelson & Whitman, Real Estate Finance Law, (West Publishing Co., 3d Ed. 1994), §7.21:

. . . a trustee in a deed of trust is a fiduciary for both the mortgagor and mortgagee and must act impartially between them. As one leading decision has stated, “the trustee for sale is bound by his office to bring the estate to a sale under every possible advantage to the debtor as well as to the creditor, and he is bound to use not only good faith but also every requisite degree of diligence in conducting the sale and to attend equally to the interest of debtor and creditor alike, apprising both of the intention of selling, that each may take the means to procure an advantageous sale.”

Mills v. Mutual Building & Loan Association, 216 N.C. 664, 669, 6 S.E.2d 549, 554 (1940).

The fiduciary duty of a trustee to obtain the best possible price for trust property that it sells has been discussed in nonjudicial and other contexts^{^[15]}.

However, this “fiduciary” characterization of a trustee is not accepted in all jurisdictions. The California Supreme Court has stated,

“The similarities between a trustee of an express trust and a trustee under a deed of trust end with the name. ‘Just as a panda is not a true bear, a trustee of a deed of trust is not a true trustee.’ *** [T]he trustee under a deed of trust does not have a true trustee’s interest in, and control over, the trust property. Nor is it bound by the fiduciary duties that characterize a true trustee.”

Monterey S.P. Partnership v. W.L. Bangham, Inc. 49 Cal.3d 454, 462, 261 Cal.Rptr. 587,592 (1989).

In most jurisdictions, a trustee cannot, without the express consent of the trustor, purchase at the sale that he conducts^{^[16]}. A court may impose additional affirmative duties (beyond the statutory requirements) upon the trustee in certain circumstances. This could include a requirement that a trustee’s sale be continued, if necessary, to prevent a total loss of the debtor’s equity. West v. Axtell, 322 Mo. 401, 17 S.W.2d 328 (1929). RCW 61.24.040(6) authorizes a trustee to continue a trustee’s sale for a period or periods totaling 120 days for “any cause he deems advantageous.”

However, the Washington Court of Appeals has ruled that the trustee need not exercise “due diligence” in notifying interested parties of an impending sale. Morrell v. Arctic Trading Co., 21 Wn. App. 302, 584 P.2d 983 (1978). Further, the general rule is that a trustee is not obligated to disclose liens or other interests which the purchaser could or should have discovered through his or her own investigation. Ivrey v. Karr, 182 Md. 463, 34 A.2d 847, 852 (1943). The Washington courts have held that even when a trustee is aware of defects in title, the trustee only undertakes an affirmative duty of full and accurate disclosure if s/he has made any representations or answered any questions concerning the title. McPherson v. Purdue, 21 Wn. App. 450, 453, 585 P.2d 830 (1978). However, despite this general rule, there is authority behind the proposition that a trustee has a fiduciary duty to restrain the sale due to defects known to the trustee. In Cox v. Helenius, 103 Wn.2d 383,*,693 P.2d 683 (1985), in which the trustee knew that the right to foreclose was disputed and that the attorney for the trustor had failed to restrain the sale, the court held that the trustee should have either informed the attorney for the trustor that she had failed to properly restrain the sale or delayed foreclosure. As a result of the trustee’s failure to do so, the sale was held void.

Trustees are not permitted to “chill the bidding” by making statements which would discourage bidding, for example, a statement that it is unlikely that the sale will be held because the debtor intends to reinstate^{^[17]}. If a trustee does engage in “chilled bidding”, the sale is subject to being set aside^{^[18]}.

2. Strict Construction of the Deed of Trust Statute

The nonjudicial foreclosure process is intended to be inexpensive and efficient while providing an adequate opportunity for preventing wrongful foreclosures and promoting the stability of land titles^{^[19]}. However, statutes allowing foreclosure under a power of sale contained within the trust deed or mortgage are usually strictly construed. Id. at 509.

Recent decisions have moved away from the strict construction ruling, holding that some technical violations of statutes governing nonjudicial foreclosures will not serve as grounds for setting aside sale when the error was non-prejudicial and correctable. See Koegal, supra at 113. An example of a non-prejudicial and correctable error is noncompliance with the requirement that the trustee record the notice of sale 90-days prior to the actual sale when actual notice of the sale was given to the debtors 90-days prior to the sale and the lack of recording caused no harm. Steward, supra at 515. Further, inconsequential defects often involve minor discrepancies regarding the notice of sale. In Bailey v. Pioneer Federal Savings and Loan Association, 210 Va. 558, 172 S.E.2d 730 (1970), where the first of four published notices omitted the place of the sale, the court held that since there was “substantial compliance” with the requirements specified by the deed of trust and since the parties were not affected in a “material way,” the sale was valid^{^[20]}. In another case, where the notice of sale was sent by regular rather than by statutorily required certified or registered mail and the mortgagor had actual notice of the sale for more than the statutory period prior to the sale, the sale was deemed valid^{^[21]}. Clearly a grantor must show some prejudice.

D. POST-SALE REMEDIES

1. Statutory Presumptions

The Washington Deed of Trust Act contains statutory presumptions in connection with a trustee’s sale that are similar to those found in most other states.^{^[22]} RCW 61.24.040(7) provides, in part:

. . . the [trustee’s] deed shall recite the facts showing that the sale was conducted in compliance with all of the requirements of this chapter and of the deed of trust, which recital shall be prima facie evidence of such compliance and conclusive evidence thereof in favor of bona fide purchasers and encumbrancers for value.

Such provisions are designed to protect bona fide purchasers and to assure that the title passed through a trustee’s sale will be readily insurable. However, although the required recitals are described as “conclusive” in favor of bona fide purchasers and encumbrancers for value, there is extensive case law setting forth the basis for rebutting these presumptions. They also don’t apply to a dispute between the grantor and grantee. See, generally, Nelson & Whitman, Real Estate Finance Law, (2d ed. 1985) § 7.21 ff. Some states employ other means of stabilizing titles, such as title insurance. Yet another means of stabilizing titles is to include a provision in the deed of trust that in the event of a trustee’s sale, the recital will be conclusive proof of the facts. See, Johnson v. Johnson, 25 Wn. 2d 797 (1946); Glidden v. Municipal Authority, 111 Wn. 2d 341 (1988), modified By Glidden v. Municipal Authority, 764 P.2d 647 (1988).

2. The Bona Fide Purchaser

The law is well settled that a bona fide purchaser, in order to achieve that status, must have purchased the property “for value.” See RCW 61.24.040(7).

The general rule is set forth in Phillips v. Latham, 523 S.W.2d 19, 24 (Tex. 1975):

[The purchaser] cannot claim to be a good-faith purchaser for value because the jury found . . . that the sale price of $691.43 was grossly inadequate. These findings are not attacked for lack of evidence. Although good faith does not necessarily require payment of the full value of the property, a purchaser who pays a grossly inadequate price cannot be considered a good-faith purchaser for value.

Further, if a lis pendens has been recorded, it “will cause the purchaser to take subject to the plaintiff’s claims.” Bernhardt, California Mortgage & Deed of Trust Practice (2d Edition 1990). A purchaser will not then constitute a bona fide purchaser able to utilize the presumptions of regularity in recitals of the trustee’s deed. See CC § 2924. The beneficiary of a deed of trust is not a bona fide purchaser. See Johnson, supra.

E. SETTING ASIDE THE TRUSTEE’S SALE

Setting aside a trustee’s sale is largely a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Crummer v. Whitehead, 230 Cal. App. 2d 264, 40 Cal. Rptr. 826 (1964); Brown v. Busch, 152 Ca. App. 2d 200, 313 P.2d 19 (1957). After a trustee’s sale has taken place, a trustor or junior lienor may bring an action in equity to set aside the sale. See Crummer v. Whitehead, 230 Cal. App. 2d 264, 40 Cal. Rptr. 826 (1964); see also Note, “Court Actions Contesting The Nonjudicial Foreclosure of Deeds of Trust In Washington,” 59 Wash.L.Rev. 323 (1984)^{^[23]}.

An action may be brought to set aside a trustee’s sale under circumstances where the trustee’s sale is void. Cox v. Helenius, 103 Wn.2d 383, 693 P.2d 683 (1985). In those circumstances where the defect in the trustee’s sale procedure does not render the trustee’s sale void, the court will probably apply equitable principles in deciding what relief, if any, is available to the parties. A general discussion of equitable principles in contexts other than trustee’s sale can be found in Eastlake Community Council v. Roanoake Associates, 82 Wn.2d 475, 513 P.2d 36 (1973) and Arnold v. Melani, 75 Wn.2d 143, 437 P.2d 908 (1968). Although it is preferable to raise any defenses to the obligations secured by the deed of trust or other defects in the nonjudicial foreclosure process prior to the trustee’s sale, a trustee’s sale can presumably be set aside if there was a good reason for not restraining it. Possible reasons could include those described below.

1. Breach of the Trustee’s Duty

a. Inadequate Sale Price

The general rule on using inadequate sale price to set aside a deed of trust sale is stated in Nelson & Whitman, supra, § 7.21:

All jurisdictions adhere to the recognized rule that mere inadequacy of the foreclosure sale price will not invalidate a sale, absent fraud, unfairness, or other irregularity. Stating the rule in a slightly different manner, courts sometimes say that inadequacy of the sale price is an insufficient ground unless it is so gross as to shock the conscience of the court, warranting an inference of fraud or imposition^{^[24]}.

In Cox v. Helenius, supra, at p. 388, the court indicated that the inadequate sale price coupled with the trustee’s actions, would have resulted in a void sale, even if not restrained.

Generally, unless the sale price is grossly inadequate, other irregularities or unfairness must exist. However, considerable authority exists to support setting aside a sale when, coupled with an inadequate sale price, there is any other reason warranting equitable relief. Nelson & Whitman, Real Estate Finance Law, supra.

b. Hostility or Indifference to Rights of Debtor.

In Dingus, supra, at 289, it is stated:

In an action to set aside a foreclosure sale under a deed of trust, evidence showing that the trustee was hostile and wholly indifferent to any right of the mortgagor warrants setting aside the sale. Lunsford v. Davis, 254 S.W. 878 (Mo. 1923).

CF. Cox v. Helenius, supra.

c. Other Trustee Misconduct

Other trustee misconduct that would give rise to grounds for setting aside a trustees sale could include “chilled bidding” where the trustee acts in a manner that discourages other parties from bidding on the property^{^[25]}. Actions by the trustee which lull the debtor into inaction may also give rise to grounds for avoiding the sale^{^[26]}. Particular note should also be made of the discussion in Cox v. Helenius, supra, at p.390 in which trustees who serve a dual role as trustee and attorney for the beneficiary are directed to transfer one role to another person where an actual conflict of interest arises.

2. Absence of Other Foreclosure Requisites

RCW 61.24.030 sets forth the requisites to non-judicial foreclosure. Failure to meet these requisites may render the trustee’s sale void. In Cox v. Helenius, 103 Wn.2d 383, 693 P.2d 683 (1985), the court concluded that a trustee’s sale was void under circumstances where the borrower had filed an action contesting the obligation and that action was pending at the time of the trustee’s sale. The action was filed after service of the notice of default but before service of the notice of foreclosure and trustee’s sale.

The decision in Cox was based on language in the Deed of Trust Act that made it a requisite to foreclosure that “no action is pending on an obligation secured by the deed of trust.” That part of the Cox decision was legislative overruled by Chapter 193, Law of 1985, Reg. Sess., which amended RCW 61.24.030(4) to read as follows:

That no action commenced by the beneficiary of the deed of trust is now pending to seek satisfaction of an obligation secured by the deed of trust in any court by reason of the grantor’s default on the obligation secured;

As a result of the amendment, pendency of an action on the obligation brought by the grantor does not render a subsequent trustee’s sale void. Only pending actions commenced by the beneficiary to seek satisfaction of the obligation secured by the deed of trust operate as a bar to nonjudicial foreclosure. The trustee must be properly appointed and be appointed before the trustee has authority to act. When an eager trustee “jumps the gun” the actions are equally void.

F. ADDITIONAL STATUTORY REMEDIES

1. Confirmation of Sale Price.

Many states (but not Washington) require confirmation that the nonjudicial sale resulted in a fair value to the debtor. Below is listed the states that have adopted fair market value statutes^{^[27]}. Fair market value statutes are usually used to limit deficiency judgments to the difference between the fair market value and the debt. Failure to confirm the sale within the statutory period is usually a bar to a deficiency. For example, in Georgia the court must be petitioned for a confirmation of the sale if a deficiency judgment is sought.

2. Redemption in Nonjudicial Foreclosures.

Approximately one-half of the states allow for redemption after foreclosure, although not Washington. Some states allow redemption after a nonjudicial sale. See Minnesota Statutes Annotated § 580 et seq. Generally, the grantor can remain in possession during the redemption period, rent the property (retaining the rents) and/or sell the property (or sell the redemption rights).

G. RAISING DEFENSES IN THE UNLAWFUL DETAINER (EVICTION) ACTION

In Washington, RCW 61.24.060 specifies that the purchaser at a trustee’s sale is entitled to possession of the property on the 20th day following the sale. If the grantor or person claiming through the grantor refuses to vacate the property, the purchaser is entitled to bring an action to recover possession of the property pursuant to the unlawful detainer statute, RCW 59.12. Ordinarily, parties in possession will not be allowed to raise some defenses in the unlawful detainer action that could have been raised prior to the trustee’s sale^{^[28]}. In most states defenses in an eviction action are severely limited. Despite these early cases restricting defenses in unlawful detainer, e.g. Peoples National Bank v. Ostander, 6 Wn. App. 28 (1971), a more recent case, Cox v. Helenius, 103 Wash. 2d 208 (1985), allowed defenses to be raised that the sale was void because of defects in the foreclosure process itself. In fact, Cox v. Helenius was initially a unlawful detainer action in the King County Superior Court. In Savings Bank of Puget Sound v. Mink, 49 Wn. App. 204 (1987), Division One of the Court of Appeals, held that a number of defenses raised by the appellant (Truth-in-Lending violations, infliction of emotional distress, defamation, slander, etc.) were not properly assertable in an unlawful detainer action but ruled that:

However, in Cox v. Helenius, supra, the Supreme Court recognized that there may be circumstances surrounding the foreclosure process that will void the sale and thus destroy any right to possession in the purchaser at the sale.

In Cox, the Court recognized two bases for post sale relief: defects in the foreclosure process itself, i.e., failure to observe the statutory prescriptions and the existence of an actual conflict of interest on the part of the trustee…

B. The Deed of Trust Act must be construed strictly against lenders and in favor of borrowers.

Washington law is similarly clear that the Deed of Trust Act, being non-judicial in nature and without the scrutiny by courts until the unlawful detainer stage, is strictly construed against lenders and in favor of borrowers. Queen City Savings and Loan v. Mannhalt, 111

In order to avoid the jurisdictional and other problems that arise when trying to litigate claims in the unlawful detainer action, it is recommended that a separate action be filed to set aside the trustee’s sale and that the two actions be consolidated.

H. DAMAGES FOR WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE

There is a damage claim for the tort of wrongful foreclosure. The claim may also exist as a breach of contract claim. See, Theis v. Federal Finance Co., 4 Wn. App. 146 (1971); Cox v. Helenius, supra.

III. DEFENDING JUDICIAL FORECLOSURES

A. INTRODUCTION

The same range of defenses is generally available to the borrower in both nonjudicial and judicial foreclosures. Defenses may include fraud or misrepresentation, violations of Truth-in-Lending, violations of usury statutes, violations of other consumer protection acts, or failure to comply with applicable regulations when the government is the lender, insurer, or guarantor. Other defenses, however, are unique to judicial foreclosures and must be raised affirmatively. Most rights are set forth in statutes and they must be asserted in compliance with the particular requirements of the law. The judicial foreclosure statutes are set forth below^{^[29]}.

B. HOMESTEAD RIGHTS

If the plaintiff’s complaint seeks possession of the property at the sheriff’s sale and the homeowner wishes to remain on the premises during the redemption period, then the homeowner should plead the existence of homestead rights in the answer so as not to waive them. State, ex rel., O’Brien v. Superior Court, 173 Wash. 679, 24 P.2d 117 (1933); State, ex rel., White v. Douglas, 6 Wn.2d 356, 107 P.2d 593 (1940).

C. UPSET PRICE

Some states authorize the court to establish an upset price (or minimum bid amount) in a foreclosure sale. In Washington, RCW 61.12.060 authorizes the court where a deficiency is sought, in ordering a sheriff’s sale, to take judicial notice of economic conditions and, after a proper hearing, fix a minimum or upset price for which the mortgaged premises must be sold before the sale will be confirmed. If a depressed real estate market justifies seeking an upset price, then the mortgagor should request in the answer that one be set. See, McClure v. Delguzzi, 53 Wn. App. 404 (1989). Some states give this power to the courts with any sale without reference to any other valuation method. See e.g. Kan. Stat. §60-2415(b) (1988); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §600.3155 (1919). The court has great discretion in arriving at and setting an upset price if the statute fails to specify the method to be used in calculating the price. There is always the danger that in the absence of statutory standards, the power to set the upset price will be abused^{^[30]}.

D. DEFICIENCY JUDGMENTS

A deficiency judgment results when the amount for which the property is sold at the sheriff’s sale is less than the amount of the judgment entered in the foreclosure action. A deficiency judgment in connection with a foreclosure is enforceable like any other money judgment. If the mortgage or other instrument contains an express agreement for the payment of money, then the lender may seek a deficiency judgment. See RCW 61.12.070. In Thompson v. Smith, 58 Wn. App. 361 (1990), Division I, held the acceptance of a deed in lieu of foreclosure triggers the anti-deficiency provisions of the Deed of Trust Act, 61.24.100. The procedural requirements for obtaining a deficiency judgment vary, but must be strictly adhered to or the right will be lost. In general, an action must be brought within a statutorily set amount of time following the foreclosure sale. For example, California Civ. Proc. Code § 726 (Supp. 1984) (three months); N.Y. Real Prop. Acts. Law § 1371 (2) (McKinney 1979) (ninety days); and Pennsylvania Stat. Ann. tit. 12, section 2621.7 (1967) (six months). Many states also have time limits for the completion of the execution of a deficiency. Maryland Rules, Rule W75 (b)(3) (1984) (three years); and Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2329.08 (Anderson 1981) (two years on land with dwelling for two families or less or used as a farm dwelling). Some states have longer redemption periods when a deficiency is sought. e.g. Wisconsin (6-12 months); Washington (8-12 months).

E. REDEMPTION RIGHTS

Approximately one-half of the states have statutes that give a borrower the right to redeem the property after the foreclosure sale. This right has specific statutory time limits. The time period for redemption varies from thirty days to three years after the foreclosure sale. Strict compliance with the statutory requirements is mandatory.

Under Washington law, if the lender seeks a deficiency judgment or if the mortgage does not contain a clause that the property is not for agricultural purposes, then the redemption period is one year from the date of the sheriff’s sale. See RCW 6.23.020.

If the lender does not seek a deficiency judgment and the mortgage contains a clause that the property is not being used for agricultural purposes, than the redemption period is eight months. Id.

There is no statutory redemption period if there is a structure on the land and the court finds that the property has been abandoned for six months prior to the decree of foreclosure. See RCW 61.12.093. This section is not applicable to property that is used primarily for agricultural purposes. RCW 61.12.095.

The purchaser at the sheriff’s sale, or the purchaser’s assignee, must send notice to the judgment debtor every two months that the redemption period is expiring. Failure to give any of the notices in the manner and containing the information required by statute will operate to extend the redemption period. RCW 6.23.080.

Any party seeking to redeem must give the sheriff at least five days written notice of the intention to apply to the sheriff for that purpose. RCW 6.23.080(1). The amount necessary to redeem is the amount of the bid at the sheriff’s sale, interest thereon at the rate provided in the judgment to the time of redemption, any assessment or taxes which the purchaser has paid after circumstances, other sums that were paid on prior liens or obligations. RCW 6.23.020.

Redemption rights are freely alienable and a property owner can sell the homestead during the redemption period free of judgment liens. Great Northwest Federal Savings and Loan Association v. T.B. and R.F. Jones, Inc., 23 Wn. App. 55, 596 P.2d 1059 (1979). This is an important right and is often overlooked. For example, in VA loans the sale price is very low because the VA deducts its anticipated costs of holding and resale. Therefore, the property can be redeemed for that amount. There, lenders routinely advise debtors to move out at the beginning of the period, which they do not legally have to do.

The debtor can sometimes rent the property and the rents retained during the redemption period.

F. POSSESSION AFTER SALE

If the homeowner exercises his redemption rights and there is a purchaser in possession, then the homeowner can apply for a writ of assistance to secure possession of the property anytime before the expiration of the redemption period. If the homeowner has no right to claim a homestead or is not occupying the property as a homestead during redemption period, then the lender can apply for a writ of assistance at the time of the foreclosure decree to obtain possession of the property. A writ of assistance is similar to a writ of restitution and is executed by the sheriff. The purchaser at the sheriff’s sale normally has no right to possession until after receipt of a sheriff’s deed^{^[31]}.

G. POST FORECLOSURE RELIEF

A foreclosure can be vacated under rules allowing vacating judgments, e.g. F.R.Civ.P 60(b); See also Godsden & Farba, Under What Circumstances Can a Foreclosure Sale be Set Aside Under New York Law, New York State Bar Journal (May 1993).

IV. MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES

A. BANKRUPTCY

Bankruptcy has a significant impact on real estate foreclosures and is beyond the scope of this outline. Under section 362 (a) of the Bankruptcy Code, filing any of the three types of bankruptcy stays all foreclosure proceedings. See 11 U.S.C.A. § 362 (a)(4); Murphy, The Automatic Stay in Bankruptcy, 34 Clev.St.L.Rev. 597 (1986). A stay has been held to apply to a possessory interest after foreclosure to allow a challenge to the validity of the foreclosure in an adversary action in bankruptcy court. In re Campos, No. 93-04719 (W.D. WN-B.Ct, Order of July 9, 1993). The stay applies to both judicial and nonjudicial foreclosures and it also applies whether or not the foreclosure was begun before the bankruptcy. See 11 U.S.C.A. § 362 (a). The only notable exception to the automatic stay is for foreclosures brought by the Secretary of HUD on federally insured mortgages for real estate involving five or more units. See 11 U.S.C.A. § 362 (b)(8).

A trustee in a bankruptcy may also undo a foreclosure as a fraudulent transfer if a creditor gets a windfall. See II U.S.C. §547 and §548, within 90 days or within one year if an “insider” forecloses^{^[32]}.

A portion of the equity under state or federal law may be protected from creditors, although not from secured creditors.

B. WORKOUTS (DEED IN LIEU)

A deed is sometimes given by a mortgagor in lieu of foreclosure and in satisfaction of a mortgage debt. Such a workout “is subject to close scrutiny in an effort to determine whether it was voluntarily entered into on the part of the mortgagor under conditions free of undue influence, oppression, unfairness or unconscientious advantage. Further the burden of proving the fairness rests with the mortgagee.” Robar v. Ellingson, 301 N.W.2d 653, 657-658 (N.D.1981) (insufficient threshold evidence of oppression or unfairness to trigger mortgagee’s burden of proof). Courts also tend to find the deed in lieu of foreclosure to be another mortgage transaction in the form of an absolute deed. Peugh v. Davis, 96 U.S. (6 Otto) 332, 24 L.Ed. 775 (1877). See also, Noelker v. Wehmeyer, 392 S.W.2d 409 (Mo.App.1965). When a mortgagee takes a deed in lieu there is the possibility that the conveyance will be avoided under bankruptcy laws. It should be noted that if other liens have been created against a property after the time of the original mortgage, the deed in lieu will not cut off those liens. See Note, 31 Mo.L.Rev. 312, 314 (1966). A deed in lieu should contain a comprehensive agreement regarding any deficiency claims, etc.

C. LENDER LIABILITY

It is possible to use theories of lender liability to assist in successfully negotiating a workout, or an avoidance of foreclosure. This principally occurs in commercial foreclosures but there are some strategies that apply to the residential setting. This may involve persuading the lender that failing to reach a workout agreement may result in a claim against the lender, absolving the borrower from liability on the loan and/or granting an affirmative judgment against the lender. Some of the useful theories of lender liability are breach of agreement to lend, breach of loan agreement, failure to renew term note/wrongful termination, promissory estoppel, lender interference, and negligent loan management. Some of the common law defenses for a borrower are fraud, duress, usury and negligence. Further, because banks are so closely regulated, a borrower should also explore statutory violations. For a detailed treatment of workouts, see Dunaway, supra, (Vol. 1, Chapter 4B)^{^[33]}.

D. MOBILE HOME FORECLOSURES

Generally, mobile homes are repossessed under Article 9-503 of the Uniform Commercial Code, and are beyond the scope of this outline. Many states limit deficiencies in purchase money security agreements and/or allow reinstatement. There are many abuses in the sales of mobile homes and the various consumer protection laws (and usury laws) provide a fertile source of potential defenses. See generally, Unfair and Deceptive Practices, National Consumer Law Center (2nd ed.), paragraph 5.4.8.

E. TAX CONSEQUENCES OF FORECLOSURE

Although beyond the scope of this outline, there are tax consequences when property is foreclosed, particularly in commercial transactions.

First, a foreclosure or deed in lieu of foreclosure is treated as a sale or exchange. Treas. Rep. 1-001-2; Rev. Ruling 73-36, 1973-1 CB 372. The amount realized (gained) is the greater of the sales proceeds or the debt satisfied. Parker v. Delaney, 186 F.2d 455 (1st Cir. 1950). When debt is cancelled (such as by an anti-deficiency statute), a gain may be generated. IRS Code §61(a).

Second, when home equity debt plus purchase debts exceeds the value of the property, a taxable gain can be generated. Finally, if the debtor is “insolvent” when the foreclosure occurs, §108(a)(1)(A) of the IRS Code excludes income (gain) to the extent the debtor is insolvent. This is complicated and a tax expert should be consulted to analyze any potential tax bite upon foreclosure. See generally, Dunaway, supra, for a detailed analysis of the tax consequences of foreclosure.

V. THE GOVERNMENT AS INSURER, GUARANTOR OR LENDER

A. INTRODUCTION

There are a variety of federal home ownership programs that may provide special protections for homeowners who are faced with the prospect of foreclosure. These protections generally apply regardless of whether the security divide used is a mortgage or deed of trust. The programs range from home loans insured by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) or guaranteed by the Veteran’s Administration (VA) to programs such as the Farmer’s Home Administration (FmHA) home ownership program where the government acts as a direct lender. The procedures which must be followed by loan servicers and applicable governmental agencies are described below. Also, Fannie Mae published in 1997 a Foreclosure Manual for loan services, which outlines various workouts and other loss mitigation procedures.

When the government controls the loan (or the lender) its actions are subject to the protection of the due process provision of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution^{^[34]}. This calls into question the use of nonjudicial foreclosure as there is no opportunity to be heard and notice is usually deficient or, at best, minimal.

B. HUD WORKOUT OPTIONS

1. Applicability

Homeowners who have a HUD insured mortgage or deed of trust may be eligible for relief through the HUD foreclosure prevention program. HUD regulations also require that lenders meet certain servicing responsibilities before proceeding with foreclosure. Regulations for loss mitigation are found at 24 C.F.R. Sec. 203.605.

2. Procedure when the Homeowner is in Default

a. Delinquency Required for Foreclosure.

The servicer shall not turn the action over for foreclosure until at least three full monthly payments are unpaid after application of any partial payments. 24 C.F.R. Sec. 203. The servicer is required to send a HUD brochure on avoiding foreclosure to the borrower informing them of their right to seek various alternatives to foreclosure.

The servicer must allow reinstatement even after foreclosure has been started if the homeowner tenders all amounts to bring the account current, including costs and attorney fees. 24 C.F.R. Sec. 203.

b. Forbearance Relief.

The homeowner may be eligible for special forbearance relief if it is found that the default was due to circumstances beyond the homeowners’ control. 24 C.F.R. Sec. 203. The homeowner and the lender are authorized to enter into a forbearance agreement providing for:

i. Increase, reduction, or suspension of regular payments for a specified period;

ii. Resumption of regular payments after expiration of the forbearance period;

iii. Arrangements for payment of the delinquent amount before the maturity date of the mortgage or at a subsequent date.

Suspension or reduction or payments shall not exceed 18 months under these special forbearance relief provisions.

c. Recasting of Mortgage.

HUD has the authority to approve a recasting agreement to extend the term of the mortgage and reduce the monthly payments. 24 C.F.R. Sec. 203.

HUD’s actions may be declared unlawful and set aside if the court finds it to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. See Federal National Mortgage Association v. Rathgens, 595 F. Supp. 552 (S.D. Ohio 1984); Butler v. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, 595 F. Supp. 1041 (E.D. Pa. 1984). See, generally, Ferrell v. Pierce, 560 F. Supp. 1344 (N.D. Ill. 1983).

In Brown v. Kemp, 714 F. Supp. 445 (W.D. Wash. 1989) the court found HUD’s decision for an assignment program application to be informal agency action and thus reviewable under the “arbitrary” and “capricious” standard.

Failure to follow servicing requirements or comply with the HUD assignment regulations or handbook provisions may also constitute an equitable defense to foreclosure^{^[35]}.

C. THE VA HOME LOAN PROGRAM

1. Applicability

Homeowners who have a VA guaranteed mortgage or deed of trust may be eligible for relief through a VA recommended forbearance program or “refunding” of the loan. Regulations promulgated at 38 C.F.R. Sec. 36.4300, et seq., and VA servicing handbooks establish a policy of forbearance when a loan is in default. The VA is reluctant to enforce these regulations against lenders.

2. Forbearance Relief

Lenders are officially encouraged to grant forbearance relief for mortgagors who default on their loans due to circumstances beyond their control. Lender’s Handbook, VA Pamphlet No. 26-7 (Revised) and VA Manual 26-3. These rights should be pursued with the lender immediately.

3. Refunding Loans

The Veteran’s Administration is authorized to “refund” loans when borrowers meet certain criteria. Refunding the loan is when the VA pays the lender in full and takes an assignment of the loan and security in cases where the loan is in default. The VA then owns the loan and the veteran makes payments to the VA directly. Although 38 C.F.R. Sec. 36.4318 authorize refunding, the regulations are much more vague than those promulgated in connection with the HUD assignment program.

4. Judicial Review

The VA decision to deny assignment of a VA loan is committed to agency discretion within the meaning of the federal Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 701(a)(2), and is not reviewable. Rank v. Nimmo, 677 F.2d 692 (9th Cir. 1982).

The courts have ruled that a borrower has no express or implied right of action in federal court to enforce duties, which VA or lenders might have under VA publications with respect to forbearance assistance. See, Rank v. Nimmo, supra; Gatter v. Nimmo, 672 P.2d 343 (3rd Cir. 1982); Simpson v. Clelend, 640 F.2d 1354 (D.C. Cir. 1981). But, see, Union National Bank v. Cobbs, 567 A.2d 719 (1989) (failure to follow VA Handbook an equitable defense).

Failure to follow VA publications, however, may be an equitable defense to foreclosure under state law. See, Simpson v. Cleland, supra.

5. Waiver of Debt/Release of Liability

Federal statutes, VA regulations and guidelines require the VA to waive a deficiency (or indemnity) debt, after a foreclosure, when equity and good conscience require it. 38 C.F.R. §1.965(a)(3). The VA is reluctant to follow its own regulations and must be pressed. The Court of Veterans Appeals (CVA) reverses over 50% of denial of waivers – an astonishing measure of the VA’s failure to follow clear federal law! See The Veterans Advocate, Vol. 5, No. 10, P. 93 (June 1994). The VA urged its regional offices to avoid CVA rulings until forced to retract this directive. See The Veterans Advocate, supra. The VA also ignores the six-year statute of limitations when demanding payment. 28 U.S.C. 2415.

Secondly, the VA can determine that the claimed debt is invalid, such as when the veteran is eligible for a retroactive release of liability. This occurs when the VA would have released the veterans when the property was sold to a qualifying purchaser who assumes the debt. 38 U.S.C. 3713(b); Travelstead v. Derwinski, 978 F.2d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

The VA has the burden to determine whether the veteran should be released.

6. Deficiency Judgments and VA Loans

It is the policy of VA to order an appraisal prior to a judicial or nonjudicial foreclosure sale and to instruct the lender to bid the amount of the appraisal at the sale. This “appraisal” is always below fair market value and includes the VA’s anticipated costs of holding and liquidating the property. 38 U.S.C. 3732(c); 38 C.F.R. §36.4320. Ordinarily, on pre-1989 laws, VA will not waive its right to seek a deficiency judgment in a judicial foreclosure and will reserve its right to seek a deficiency against a borrower, even in the case of a nonjudicial foreclosure of a deed of trust, notwithstanding the anti-deficiency language of RCW 61.24.100. On loans made after 1989 changes in the VA program, deficiencies are not sought.

Although, United States v. Shimer, 367 U.S. 374 (1960) appears to authorize this VA deficiency policy, the Washington non-judicial deed of trust foreclosure procedure which retains judicial foreclosure and preservation of the right to seek a deficiency judgment as an option, seems to make United States v. Shimer, distinguishable.

In United States v. Vallejo, 660 F. Supp. 535 (1987), the court held that the VA must follow Washington foreclosure law, including the anti-deficiency provisions of the Deed of Trust Act as the “federal common law”. This ruling was subsequently followed in a class action, Whitehead v. Derwinski, 904 F.2d 1362 (9th Cir. 1990), wherein the VA has been permanently enjoined from collecting $63 million in claims and ordered to repay millions in illegally collected deficiencies. This issue of the application of various state laws as to federally insured loans is not clear, as the Ninth Circuit overruled Whitehead in Carter v. Derwinski, 987 F.2d 611 (9th Cir. – en banc – 1993). Subsequent decisions still create doubt as to whether United States v. Shimer, supra, is still good law^{^[36]}.

At the very least, if the lender is instructed by the VA to preserve the right to seek a deficiency against the borrower, then the lender should be required to foreclose the deed of trust judicially as a mortgage.

D. RURAL HOUSING SECTION 502 LOANS

1. Applicability

The Rural Housing Service (RHS) formerly, the Farmer’s Home Administration, is authorized to grant interest credit and provide moratorium relief for homeowners who fall behind on their loan payments due to circumstances beyond their control. Regulations for moratorium relief and interest credit are found at 7 C.F.R. Sec. 3550 et seq and must be complied with prior to foreclosure. United States v. Rodriguez, 453 F. Supp. 21 (E.D. Wn. 1978). See, 42 U.S.C. §1472. All servicing of RHS loans is handled at the Centralized Servicing Center in St. Louis, MO (phone: 1-800-793-8861).

2. Interest Credit

If a homeowner falls behind on his RHS loan because of circumstances beyond his or her control, then RHS has the authority to accept principal only and waive the interest payments. Although RHS is supposed to use this remedy before considering moratorium relief, it rarely does.

3. Moratorium Relief

If a homeowner falls behind in loan payments because of circumstances beyond his or her control, RHS may suspend payments or reduce payments for six months. Moratorium relief may be extended for additional six-month segments up to a total of three years^{^[37]}.

Once a homeowner has been granted moratorium relief, RHS cannot grant it again for five years. If a homeowner cannot resume payments in three years from when moratorium relief began, then it will begin foreclosure proceedings.

After moratorium relief has been extended, the homeowner can make additional partial payments to catch up the delinquent amount or, the loan can be reamortized. RHS will restructure the loan, 7 U.S.C. 2001.

4. Waiver of Redemption and Homestead Rights

Form mortgages used by RHS purported to waive the homeowner’s redemption rights and homestead rights in the event of foreclosure. It is questionable whether such a waiver is enforceable^{^[38]}.

5. Homestead Protection

See, 7 U.S.C. 2000.

6. Lease/Buy-Back

See, 7 U.S.C. 1985 (e).

VI. RESOURCES

The following treatises are excellent sources of basic information about all aspects of the foreclosure process. Dunaway, The Law of Distressed Property (4 volumes – Clark Boardman Co. 1994 and suppls.; Nelson & Whitman, Real Estate Finance Law (West 3rd Ed. 1994); Bernhardt, California Mortgages and Deed of Trust Practice, (3^rd ed. 2000 University of Calif.), Repossessions and Foreclosures (4^th ed. 2000) National Consumer Law Center. See also, Fuchs, Defending Non-Judicial Residential Foreclosures, Texas Bar J (November 1984).

1	Jurisdiction	Customary Security Agreement	Customary Foreclosure Procedure
	Alabama	Mortgage	Nonjudicial
	Alaska	Deed of Trust	Nonjudicial
	Arizona	Deed of Trust	Nonjudicial
	Arkansas	Mortgage	Judicial
	California	Deed of Trust	Nonjudicial
	Colorado	Deed of Trust (Semi-judicial)	Public Trustee’s Sale
	Connecticut	Mortgage	Judicial-Strict Foreclosure
	Delaware	Mortgage	Judicial
	Dis. of Col.	Deed of Trust	Nonjudicial
	Florida	Mortgage	Judicial
	Georgia	Security Deed	Nonjudicial
	Hawaii	Mortgage	Judicial
	Idaho	Mortgage	Judicial & Nonjudicial
	Illinois	Mtg. & D.T.	Judicial
	Indiana	Mortgage	Judicial
	Iowa	Mortgage	Judicial
	Kansas	Mortgage	Judicial
	Kentucky	Mortgage	Judicial
	Louisiana	Mortgage	Judicial
	Maine	Mortgage	Judicial (Nonjudicial for Corporate Borrower)
	Maryland	Deed of Trust	Nonjudicial
	Massachusetts	Mortgage	Nonjudicial
	Michigan	Mortgage	Nonjudicial
	Minnesota	Mortgage	Nonjudicial
	Mississippi	Deed of Trust	Nonjudicial
	Missouri	Deed of Trust	Nonjudicial
	Montana	Instlmnt. Contract	Nonjudicial
	Nebraska	Deed of Trust Mortgage	Judicial & Nonjudicial
	Nevada	Deed of Trust	Nonjudicial
	New Hampshire	Mortgage	Nonjudicial
	New Jersey	Mortgage	Judicial
	New Mexico	Mortgage	Judicial
	New York	Mortgage	Judicial
	North Carolina	Deed of Trust	Judicial
	North Dakota	Mortgage	Judicial
	Ohio	Mortgage	Judicial
	Oklahoma	Mortgage	Judicial
	Oregon	Deed of Trust	Nonjudicial
	Pennsylvania	Mortgage	Judicial
	Puerto Rico	Mortgage	Judicial
	Rhode Island	Mortgage	Nonjudicial
	South Carolina	Mortgage	Judicial
	South Dakota	Mortgage	Judicial & Nonjudicial
	Tennessee	Deed of Trust	Nonjudicial
	Texas	Deed of Trust	Nonjudicial
	Utah	Deed of Trust	Nonjudicial
	Vermont	Mortgage	Strict Foreclosure
	Virgin Islands	Mortgage	Judicial
	Virginia	Deed of Trust	Nonjudicial
	Washington	Deed of Trust	Nonjudicial
	West Virginia	Deed of Trust	Nonjudicial
	Wisconsin	Mortgage	Judicial
	Wyoming	Mtg. & Installment Contracts	Judicial

[2] Alabama: Ala. Code §§35-10-1 to 35-10-10; [foreclosure after 12/1988 §§35-10-11 to 35-10-16]

(1991).

Alaska: Alaska Stat. §§34.20.090 to 34.20.100 (1991).

Arizona: Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§33-807 to 33-814 (West 1991).

Arkansas: Ark. Code Ann. §§18-50-108; 18-50-116 (1987).

California: Cal. Civ. Code §§2924 to 2924(h) West 1992).

D.C.: D.C. Code Ann. §§45-715 to 45-718 (1991).

Georgia: Ga. Code Ann. §§9-13-141; 44-14-162.4; 44-14-48; 44-14-180 to 187 (Harrison 1991).

Idaho: Idaho Code §§6-101; 104; 45-1502 to 45-1506 (1991).

Iowa: Iowa Code Ann. §654.18 (West 1992).

Maine: Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 14, §§7-105; 7-202 (1988).

Massachusetts: Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 183, §§19, 21; ch. 244, §§11-15 (West 1992).

Michigan: Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§451-401 et seq.; 600.2431; 600.3201 et seq.; 600.3170 (West 1992).

Minnesota: Minn. Stat. Ann. §§580.01 to 580.30; 582.01 et seq. (West 1992).

Mississippi: Miss. Code Ann. §§11-5-111; 15-1-23; 89-1-55 (1972).

Missouri: Mo. Ann. Stat. §§442.290to 443.325 (Vernon 1992).

Montana: Mont. Code Ann. §§25-13-802; 71-1-111; 71-1-223 to 232, 71-1-311 to 317 (1991).

Nebraska: Neb. Rev. Stat. §§76-1001 to 1018 (1981).

Nevada: Nev. Rev. Stat. §§107.020; 107.025; 107.080 to 107.100; 40.050; 40.453 (Michie 1991).

New Hampshire: N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§479:22 to 479:27 (1991).

New York: N.Y. Real Prop. Acts §§1401 to 1461 (McKinney 1992).

North Dakota: N.D. Cent. Code §35-22-01 (1992).

Oklahoma: Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 46, §§40 to 49 (West 1992).

Oregon: Or. Rev. Stat. §§86.705 to 86.795 (1989).

Rhode Island: R.I. Gen. Laws §§34-11-22; 34-20-4; 34-23-3; 34-27-1 (1984).

South Dakota: S.D. Codified Laws Ann. §§21-48-1 to 21-48-26; 21-48A-1 to 21-48A-5 (1992).

Tennessee: Tenn. Code Ann. §§35-5-101 to 35-5-112 (1991). See, Note, Power of Sale Foreclosures in

Tennessee, 8 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 871 (1978).

Texas: Tex. Prop. Code Ann. §§51-002; 51.003; 51.005 (West 1992).

Utah: Utah Code Ann. §§57-1-23 to 57-1-34 (1986).

Vermont: Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, §§4531a to 4533 (1991).

Virginia: Va. Code Ann. §§55-59.1 to 55-59.4; 55-61 to 55-66.7 (Michie 1991).

Washington: Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §§61.24.010 to 61.24.130 (West 1992).

West Virginia: W. Va. Code §§38-1-3 to 38-1-12 (1991).

Wyoming: Wyo. Stat. §§34-4-101 to 34-4-113 (1991).

[3] See Charmicor, Inc. v. Deaner, 572 F.2d 694 (9th Cir.1978); Northrip v. Federal National Mortgage Association, 527 F.2d 23 (6th Cir.1975); Barrera v. Security Building & Investment Corp., 519 F.2d 1166 (5th Cir. 1975); Bryant v. Jefferson Federal Savings & Loan Association, 509 F.2d 511 (D.C. Cir.1974); Lawson v. Smith, 402 F.Supp. 851 (N.D.Cal.1975); Global Industries, Inc. v. Harris, 376 F.Supp. 1379 (N.D.Ga.1974); Homestead Savings v. Darmiento, 230 Cal.App.3d 424, 281 Cal.Rptr. 367 (1991); Leininger v. Merchants & Farmers Bank, macon, 481 So.2d 1086 (Miss.1986); Wright v. Associates Financial Services Co. of Oregon, Inc., 59 Or.App.688, 651 P.2d 945 (1983), certiorari denied 464 U.S. 834, 104 S.Ct. 117, 78 L.Ed.2d 116 (1983); Kennebec Inc. v. Bank of the West, 88 Wash.2d 718, 565 P.2d 812 (1977); Dennison v. Jack, 172 W.Va. 147, 304 S.E.2d 300 (1983).

[4] Island Financial, Inc. v. Ballman, 92 Md.App. 125, 607 A.2d 76 (1992); Turner v. Blackburn, 389 F.Supp. 1250 (W.D.N.C.1975); Vail v. Derwinski, 946 F.2d 589 (8th Cir.1991), amended by 956 F.2d 812 (8th Cir.1992) and Boley v. Brown, 10 F.3d 218 (4th Cir.1993) which held that the VA’s control over the foreclosure process in VA guaranteed loan foreclosures constitutes sufficient governmental action to trigger due process protections. Accord, U.S. v. Whitney, 602 F. Supp. 722 (W.D. N.Y. 1985); U.S. v. Murdoch, 627 F. Supp. 272 (N.D. Ind. 1986). See Also Leen, Galbraith & Gant, Due Process and Deeds of Trust – Strange Bedfellows, 48 Wash.L.Rev. 763 (1973).

[5] See, e.g., Reiserer v. Foothill Thrift and Loan, 208 Cal.App.3d 1082, 256 Cal.Rptr. 508 (1989) (unpublished opinion); Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. La Mansion Hotels & Resorts, Ltd., 762 S.W.2d 646 (Tex.App.1988); Bekins Bar V Ranch v. Huth, 664 P.2d 455 (Utah 1983); National Life Insurance Co. v. Cady, 227 Ga. 475, 181 S.E.2d 382 (1971); Peoples National Bank v. Ostrander, 6 Wn.App. 28, 491 P.2d 1058 (1971). See, generally, note, Court Actions Contesting The Nonjudicial Foreclosure of Deeds of Trust in Washington, 59 Wash.L.Rev. 323 (1984); Restraining Orders in Non-Judicial Deed of Trust Foreclosures, Property Law Reporter, June 1987 (Vol. 3 Nos. 4 & 5).

[6] Putnam Sand & Gravel Co. v. Albers, 14 CA3d 722, 92 CR 636 (1971).

[7] Avco Financial Services Loan, Inc. v. Hale, 36 Ohio App.3d 65, 520 N.E.2d 1378 (1987); Land Associates, Inc. v. Becker, 294 Or. 308, 656 P.2d 927 (1982), appeal after remand 74 Or.App. 444, 703 P.2d 1004 (1985).

[8] See Hummell v. Republic Federal Savings & Loan, 133 Cal.App.3d 49, 183 Cal.Rptr. 708 (4th Dist.1982); Broad & Locust Associates v. Locust-Broad Realty Co., 318 Pa.Super. 38, 464 A.2d 506 (1983); Strangis v. Metropolitan Bank, 385 N.W.2d 47 (Minn.App.1986); Franklin Savings Association v. Reese, 756 S.W.2d 14 (Tex.App.1988); Koegal v. Prudential Mutual Savings, Inc., 51 Wn.App. 108 (1988).

[9] See Ginther-Davis Center, Limited v. Houston National Bank, 600 S.W.2d 856 (Tex.Civ.App. 1980), error refused n.r.e.; see also Tiffany, Real Property, § 1549 (3d Ed. 1939) for a list of cases; Thompson, Real Property § 5179 (1957). Cf. Grella v. Berry, 647 S.W.2d 15 (Tex.App.1982).

[10] See Glines v. Theo R. Appel Realty Co., 201 Mo.App.596, 213 S.W. 498 (1919).

[11] Koegel v. Prudential Mutual Savings, Inc., 51 Wn. App. 108, 114 (1988); Steward v. Good, 51 Wn. App. 509, 515 (1988).

[12] Carlson v. Gibraltar Savings, 50 Wn. App. 424, 429 (1988).

[13] Baxter & Dunaway, The Law of Distressed Real Estate (Clark Boardman Company, Ltd., November 1990). See Spires v. Edgar, 513 S.W.2d 372 (Mo.1974).

[14] See also McHugh v. Church, 583 P.2d 210, 214 (Alaska 1978).

[15] See Cox v. Helenius, supra, at p. 389; Allard v. Pacific National Bank, 99 Wn. 2d 394, 405, 663 P.2d 104 (1983), modified by 99 Wn.2d 394, 773 P.2d 145 (1989). superseded by RCW 11.100.140 as stated in Conran v. Seafirst Bank, 1998 Wn.App. Lexis 156.. See also National Life Insurance Company v. Silverman, 454 F.2d 899, 915 (D.C. Cir. 1971), in which the court stated that the same good faith is required of trustees under a deed of trust of real estate as is required of other fiduciaries.

[16] See Smith v. Credico Industrial Loan Company, 234 Va. 514, 362 S.E.2d 735 (1987); Whitlow v. Mountain Trust Bank, 215 Va. 149, 207 S.E.2d 837 (1974).

[17] See, Nelson & Whitman, supra, Section 7.21; Dingus, Mortgages-Redemption After Foreclosure Sale in Missouri, 25 Mo.L.REV. 261, 284 (1960).

[18] Biddle v. National Old Line Ins. Co., 513 S.W.2d 135 (Tex.Civ.App.1974), error refused n.r.e.; Sullivan v. Federal Farm Mortgage Corp., 62 Ga.App.402, 8 S.E.2d 126 (1940).

[19] Queen City Savings v. Manhalt, 111 Wn.2d 503 (1988).

[20] See also Tarleton v. Griffin Federal Savings Bank, 202 Ga.App. 454, 415 S.E.2d 4 (1992); Concepts, Inc. v. First Security Realty Services, Inc., 743 P.2d 1158 (Utah 1987).

[21] Macon-Atlanta State Bank v. Gall, 666 S.W.2d 934 (Mo.App.1984). For a complete list of defects considered “insubstantial”, see Graham v. Oliver, 659 S.W.2d 601, 604 (Mo.App.1983).

[22] See also Cal. Civ. Code § 2924 (West 1981); Utah Code Ann.1953, 57-1-28; West’s Colo.Rev.Stat. Ann. §38-39-115; Or.Rev.Stat. 86.780; So.Dak.Compiled Laws 21-48-23.

[23] Attempting to Set Aside Deed of Trust Foreclosure Because of Trustee’s Fiduciary Breach, 53 Missouri L. Rev. 151 (1988).

[24] See also Dingus, Mortgages – Redemption After Foreclosure Sale in Missouri, 25 Mo.L.REV. 261, 262 (1960); California Mortgage and Deed of Trust Practice, Section 6.60 (University of California 1979).

[25] Nelson & Whitman, supra, Section 7.21. Dingus, supra, at p. 274; see also Biddle v. National Old Line Insurance Co., 513 S.W.2d 135 (Tex.Civ.App. 1974).

[26] Dingus, supra, at pp. 272-73; Cox v. Helenius, supra, at p. 389.

[27] Arizona: Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §33-814(A) (1989).

California: Cal. Civ. Code §580a (1989); Id. §726 (1989); Kirkpatrick v. Stelling, 36 Cal. App.2d 658, 98

P.2d 566, appeal dismissed, 311 U.S. 607 (1940); Risenfeld, California Legislation Curbing Deficiency

Judgments, 48 Calif. L. rev. 705 (1960). See infra, California jurisdictional summary in Part 1.

Georgia: Ga. Code Ann. §§44-14-161, -162 (1989).

Idaho: Idaho Code §§6-108, 45-1512 (1988).

Michigan: Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§600.3170, .3280 (1989).

Nebraska: Neb. Rev. Stat. §76-1013 (1989).

Nevada: Nev. Rev. Stat. §40.457 (1988).

New Jersey: N.J. Stat. Ann. §2A:50-3 (1989).

New York: N.Y. Real Prop. Acts Law §1371 (McKinney 1979 and Supp. 1990).

North Carolina: N.C. Gen. Stat. §45-21.36 (1988).

North Dakota: N.D. Cent. Code §32-19-06 (Supp. 1989).

Oklahoma: Okla. Stat. tit. 12, §686 (1990).

Pennsylvania: Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 12 §§2621.1, .6 (Purdon 1967).

South Dakota: S.D. Comp. Laws Ann. §§21-47-16, -48-14 (1989).

Utah: Utah Code Ann. §57-1-32 (1989).

Washington: Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §61.12.060 (1989).

Wisconsin: Wis. Stat. §846.165 (1988).

[28] People’s National Bank v. Ostrander, 6 Wn. App. 28, 491 P.2d 1058 (1970). See, however, Crummer v. Whitehead, 230 Cal. App. 2d 264 (1964) contra declined to follow by Eardley v. Greenberg, 160 Az.518, 774 P.2d 822 (Az.App. Div. 1 1989); MCA, Inc., v. Universal Diversified Enterprises Corp., 27 Cal. App. 3d 170 (1972). contra declined to follow by Eardley v. Greenberg, 160 Az.518, 774 P.2d 822 (Az.App. Div. 1 1989) But in a bankruptcy proceeding, defenses may be raised after the sale if the debtor is in possession.

[29] Alabama: Ala. Code §§6-9-140 to 150; 164; 35-10-2 to 35-10-12; (1977).

Alaska: Alaska Stat. §§90.45.170 to .220 (1991).

Arizona: Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§33-721 to 33-728 (1991).

Arkansas: Ark. Code Ann. §§18-49-103 to 106 (1987).

California: Cal. Civ. proc. §§725a to 730.5 (West 1991).

Colorado: Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§38-38-101 to 38-38-111 (West 1991).

Connecticut: Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §§49-24 to 49-31 (West 1991).

Delaware: Del. Code Ann. tit. 10 §§5061 to 5067 (1991).

D.C.: D.C. Code Ann. §45-716 (1981).

Florida: Fla. Stat. Ann. §702.01 (West 1992).

Georgia: Ga. Code Ann. §§9-13-140; 44-14-48 to 44-14-49; 44-14-184; 187; 189 (1991).

Hawaii: Haw. Rev. Stat. §§667-1 to 667-7 (1991)

Idaho: Idaho Code §§6-101 to 6-103; 45-1502 to 45-1503 (1991).

Illinois: Ill. Ann. Stat. Ch. 10, para. 15-1404; 15-1501 to 15-1512 (Smith-Hurd 1987).

Indiana: Ind. Code Ann. §32-8-11-3 (Burns 1980)

Iowa: Iowa Code Ann. §654.18 (West 1992).

Kansas: Kan. Stat. Ann. §60-2410 (1990).

Kentucky: Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§381.190; 426.525 (Michie 1991).

Louisiana: La. Code Civ. Proc. Ann. art. 2631 (West 1992).

Maine: Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 14, §§6321 to 6325 (West 1991).

Maryland: Md. Real Prop. Code Ann. §7-202 (1988).

Massachusetts: Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 244, §1 (West 1992).

Michigan: Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§600.3101 to 600.3130 (West 1992).

Minnesota: Minn. Stat. Ann. §§581.01 to 581.12 (1992).

Mississippi: Miss. Code Ann. §§89-1-53; 89-1-55 (1972).

Missouri: Mo. Ann. Stat. §§443.190 (Vernon 1992).

Montana: Mont. Code Ann. §§71-1-222; 232; 311; 25-13-802 (1991).

Nebraska: Neb. Rev. Stat. §§25-2137 to 25-2147 (1991).

Nevada: Nev. Rev. Ann. Stat. §§40.430; 40.435 (Michie 1991).

New Hampshire: N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§479:19 to 479:27 (1991).

New Jersey: N.J. Stat. Ann. §2A:50-2 (West 1991).

New Mexico: N.M. Stat. Ann. §§39-5-1 to 39-5-23; 48-7-7 (1991).

New York: N.Y. Real Prop. Acts Law §§1321; 1325 to 1355 (McKinney 1992).

North Carolina: N.C. Gen. Stat. §§45-21.16; 45-21.17; 45-38 (1991).

North Dakota: N.D. Cent. Code §32-19-01 to 32-19-40 (1992).

Ohio: Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §2323.07 (Anderson 1984).

Oklahoma: Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, §686 (West 1992).

Oregon: Or. Rev. Stat. §§88.010 et seq. (1989).

Pennsylvania: Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, §§274; 715; Pa. Rules Civ. Proc. Rules 1141 to 1150; 3180 to 3183;

3232; 3244; 3256; 3257.

Rhode Island: R.I. Gen. Laws §34-27-1 (1984).

South Carolina: S.C. Code Ann. §§15-7-10; 29-3-650 (Law Co-op 1990).

South Dakota: S.D. Codified Laws Ann. §§21-47-1 to 25; 21-48A-4 (1991).

Tennessee: Tenn. Code Ann. §21-1-803 (1991).

Texas: Tex. Prop. Code Ann. §§51-002; 51.004; 51.005 (West 1992).

Utah: Utah Code Ann. §§78-37-1 to 78-37-9 (1986).

Vermont: Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, §4528 (1991).

Virgin Islands: V.I. Code Ann. tit. 28, §531 to 535 (1991).

Virginia: Va. Code Ann. §§55-59.4; 55-61 (Michie 1981).

Washington: Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §§61.12.040; 61.12.060 (West 1992).

West Virginia: W. Va. Code §§55-12-1 to 55-12-8 (1991).

Wisconsin: Wis. Stat. Ann. §§846.01 to 846.25 (West 1991 (Repealed).

Wyoming: Wyo. Stat. §§1-18-101 to 1-18-112 (199).

[30] See Michigan Trust Co. v. Dutmers, 265 Mich. 651, 252 N.W. 478 (1933).

[31] Norlin v. Montgomery, 59 Wn.2d 268, 357 P.2d 621 (1961). The mortgagee’s right to possession of the property is not lost through default or abandonment. overruled on other grounds. Howard v. Edgren, 62 Wn.2d 884, 385 P.2d 41 (1963).

[32] See Durrett v. Washington National Ins., 621 F.2d 201 (5th Cir. 1980); cf. In re Madrid, 725 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir. 1984). Compare state fraudulent conveyances statutes, e.g, RCW 19.40.031.

[33] See also, Penthouse International v. Dominion Fed. S&L, 665 F. Supp. 301 (S.D. N.Y. 1987, rev. 855 F.2d 963 (2nd Cir. 1988); Joques v. First National, 515 A.2d 756 (Md. 1976); KMC v. Irving Trust, 757 F.2d 752 (6th Cir. 1985); Douglas-Hamilton, Creditor Libilities Resulting From Improper Interference with Financially Troubled Debtor, 31 Bus. Law J. 343 (1975).

[34] See Vail v. Brown, 946 F.2d 589 (8th Cir. 1991); Johnson v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 734 F.2d 774 (11th Cir. 1984); United States v. Murdoch, 627 F. Supp. 272 (N.D. Ind. 1985); Boley v. Brown, 10 F.3d 218 (4th Cir. 1993).

[35] See, Bankers Life Company v. Denton, 120 Ill. App. 3d 676, 458 N.E.2d 203 (1983); Brown v. Lynn, 385 F. Supp. 986 (N.D. Ill. 1974); GNMA v. Screen, 379 N.Y.S.2d 327 (1976); Cross v. FNMA, 359 So.2d 464 (1978); FNMA v. Ricks, 372 N.Y.S.2d 485 (1975); contra, Robert v. Cameron Brown Co., 556 F.2d 356 (5th Cir. 1977); Hernandez v. Prudential Mortgage Corporation, 553 F.2d 241 (1st Cir. 1977).

[36] See, United States v. Yazell, 382 U.S. 341 (1966); United States v. Kimbell Foods, Inc., 440 U.S. 715 (1979); United States v. Ellis. 714 F.2d 953 (9th Cir. 1983); United States v. Haddon Haciendas Co., 541 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1976).

[37] See generally, Note, Agricultural Law: FmHA Farm Foreclosures, An Analysis of Deferral Relief, 23 Washburn L.J. 287 (Winter 1984); Newborne, Defenses to a FmHA Foreclosure, 15 NYU Review of Law and Social Change, 313 (1987).

[38] See, United States v. Kimbell Foods, Inc., 440 U.S. 715 (1979); United States v. Haddon Haciendas, 541 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1976); United States v. MacKenzie, 510 F.2d 39 (9th Cir. 1975); United States v. Stadium Apts., Inc., 425 F.2d 358 (9th Cir.), (1970), cert. den. 400 U.S. 926, 91 S. Ct. 187 (1970); Phillips v. Blaser, 13 Wn.2d 439, 125 P.2d 291 (1942).

Guest Post: Ireland, Please Do the World a Favor and Default

Posted on November 28, 2010 by Foreclosureblues

Guest Post: Ireland, Please Do the World a Favor and Default

Today, November 28, 2010, 3 hours ago | Tyler Durden

Submitted by Charles Hugh Smith from Of Two Minds

Ireland, Please Do the World a Favor and Default

Ireland would save the world from much misery by defaulting now and driving the vampire banks into liquidation.

The alternative title for today entry is: Ireland, please drive a stake through the heart of the vampire banks which have the world by the throat. The entire controlled demolition of the Eurozone’s finances can be summed up in one phrase: privatize leverage and profits, socialize losses and risk.

The basic deal is this: protect the bank’s managers, shareholders and bondholders from any losses, while heaping the socialized losses and risks on the taxpayers and citizens.

While there are murmurings of “forcing bondholders to share the pain,” any future haircut will undoubtedly be just for show, while the Irish pension funds are gutted to bail out the banks.

EU Outlines Bond Restructuring Plan (WSJ.com)

Europe Goes “Completely Mad” At Suggestion Of Irish Default Demanded By 57% Of Irish Population (Zero Hedge)

Here is a chart which illustrates the dynamic at play in Greece, Ireland and indeed, the rest of the world as well: leveraged speculation and mal-investment lead to asset deflation and collapse.

Here is a chart which illustrates how asset deflation leads to taxpayer-funded bank bailouts and then sovereign default. It’s fairly self-explanatory:

It’s rather straightforward: as asset bubbles rise, they enable vast leveraging of credit and debt. Once mal-invested assets collapse in value, then the debt remains, unsupported by equity or capital.

As the Financial/Political Elites transfer these catastrophic losses onto the citizenry, they set off a positive (runaway) feedback loop: the Central State austerity required to pay the borrowing costs of the bailout sends the economy into recession, which reduces borrowers’ incomes, triggering more defaults which further sink housing prices. As prices continue falling, bank capital declines, requiring ever-larger bailouts to provide the banks with a simulacrum of solvency.

Austerity measures must be tightened to channel more of the citizens’ incomes to the banks, which further suppresses the economy, lowering tax revenues and incomes, which leads to more austerity to fund more bailouts, and so on, until the haggard remnants of a once-wealthy citizenry finally rebel against their Financial/Political Overlords and topple the government which arranged the bailout.

A new populist government announces a sovereign default, to widespread huzzahs from the unyoked citizenry.

The EU’s bailout of Greece and Ireland will only hasten this dynamic. The Power Elites are rapidly losing their credibility; just compare the market’s euphoric reaction to the Greek bailout in May and the openly negative response to the Irish bailout.

The money is lost, and Capitalism requires those who took on the risk to earn outsized returns must take the loss, come what may. When a nation such as Ireland is running a State deficit equal to 32% of GDP, austerity cannot generate the stupendous surpluses needed to make good the vast sums which are already lost.

And even if they could, why should the citizens save the banks and bondholders from the losses Capitalism requires? Mal-investments should be sold, for pennies on the dollar if need be, insolvent banks liquidated and bondholders handed 95% losses. Managers would be sacked, bonuses cancelled and shareholders wiped out.

It’s a little late to decide Capitalism is only fun when reaping gargantuan profits from highly leveraged mal-investment and fraud. Ireland, and indeed the world, will survive if all the vampire banks are liquidated. That is the end-state, and “buying time” just increases the misery of the citizens who have been yoked to save their “betters.”

Ireland, please drive a stake through the heart of the vampire banks which have the world by the throat. By defaulting, you would be doing the world (and your own nation) an immense favor.

Justice for Some

November 24th, 2010

BlogAdmin

Burden

NEW YORK – The mortgage debacle in the United States has raised deep questions about “the rule of law,” the universally accepted hallmark of an advanced, civilized society. The rule of law is supposed to protect the weak against the strong, and ensure that everyone is treated fairly. In America in the wake of the sub-prime mortgage crisis, it has done neither.

Part of the rule of law is security of property rights – if you owe money on your house, for example, the bank can’t simply take it away without following the prescribed legal process. But in recent weeks and months, Americans have seen several instances in which individuals have been dispossessed of their houses even when they have no debts.

To some banks, this is just collateral damage: millions of Americans – in addition to the estimated four million in 2008 and 2009 – still have to be thrown out of their homes. Indeed, the pace of foreclosures would be set to increase – were it not for government intervention. The procedural shortcuts, incomplete documentation, and rampant fraud that accompanied banks’ rush to generate millions of bad loans during the housing bubble has, however, complicated the process of cleaning up the ensuing mess.

To many bankers, these are just details to be overlooked. Most people evicted from their homes have not been paying their mortgages, and, in most cases, those who are throwing them out have rightful claims. But Americans are not supposed to believe in justice on average. We don’t say that most people imprisoned for life committed a crime worthy of that sentence. The US justice system demands more, and we have imposed procedural safeguards to meet these demands.

But banks want to short-circuit these procedural safeguards. They should not be allowed to do so.

To some, all of this is reminiscent of what happened in Russia, where the rule of law – bankruptcy legislation in particular – was used as a legal mechanism to replace one group of owners with another. Courts were bought, documents forged, and the process went smoothly.

In America, the venality is at a higher level. It is not particular judges that are bought, but the laws themselves, through campaign contributions and lobbying, in what has come to be called “corruption, American-style.”

It was widely known that banks and mortgage companies were engaged in predatory lending practices, taking advantage of the least educated and most financially uninformed to make loans that maximized fees and imposed enormous risks on the borrowers. (To be fair, the banks tried to take advantage of the more financially sophisticated as well, as with securities created by Goldman Sachs that were designed to fail.) But banks used all their political muscle to stop states from enacting laws to curtail predatory lending.

When it became clear that people could not pay back what was owed, the rules of the game changed. Bankruptcy laws were amended to introduce a system of “partial indentured servitude.” An individual with, say, debts equal to 100% of his income could be forced to hand over to the bank 25% of his gross, pre-tax income for the rest of his life, because, the bank could add on, say, 30% interest each year to what a person owed. In the end, a mortgage holder would owe far more than the bank ever received, even though the debtor had worked, in effect, one-quarter time for the bank.

When this new bankruptcy law was passed, no one complained that it interfered with the sanctity of contracts: at the time borrowers incurred their debt, a more humane – and economically rational – bankruptcy law gave them a chance for a fresh start if the burden of debt repayment became too onerous.

That knowledge should have given lenders incentives to make loans only to those who could repay. But lenders perhaps knew that, with the Republicans in control of government, they could make bad loans and then change the law to ensure that they could squeeze the poor.

With one out of four mortgages in the US under water – more owed than the house is worth – there is a growing consensus that the only way to deal with the mess is to write down the value of the principal (what is owed). America has a special procedure for corporate bankruptcy, called Chapter 11, which allows a speedy restructuring by writing down debt, and converting some of it to equity.

It is important to keep enterprises alive as going concerns, in order to preserve jobs and growth. But it is also important to keep families and communities intact. So America needs a “homeowners’ Chapter 11.”

Lenders complain that such a law would violate their property rights. But almost all changes in laws and regulations benefit some at the expense of others. When the 2005 bankruptcy law was passed, lenders were the beneficiaries; they didn’t worry about how the law affected the rights of debtors.

Growing inequality, combined with a flawed system of campaign finance, risks turning America’s legal system into a travesty of justice. Some may still call it the “rule of law,” but it would not be a rule of law that protects the weak against the powerful. Rather, it would enable the powerful to exploit the weak.

In today’s America, the proud claim of “justice for all” is being replaced by the more modest claim of “justice for those who can afford it.” And the number of people who can afford it is rapidly diminishing.

Foreclosure fraud on utube

Suggestions

Fox Business News Attacks Grayson, Sanctions Foreclosure Fraud

3:38 Added to queue Fox Business News Attacks Grayson, Sanctions Fo…by RepAlanGrayson9,686 views

Rep. Alan Grayson: Fox News is "Monty Python's Lying Circus"

4:05 Added to queue Rep. Alan Grayson: Fox News is “Monty Python’s …by RepAlanGrayson10,055 views

4:14 Added to queue Rep. Alan Grayson: I Just Tell the Truthby RepAlanGrayson6,643 views

Rep. Alan Grayson: "They couldn't buy me, and now they're trying to destroy me."

8:48 Added to queue Rep. Alan Grayson: “They couldn’t buy me, and n…by RepAlanGrayson6,329 views

9:59 Added to queue foreclosure fraud pt 2- read update infoby earthicastar4,903 views

MERS Mortgage Fraud Update - Foreclosure Proof MERS Loans!

4:43 Added to queue MERS Mortgage Fraud Update – Foreclosure Proof …by tnknoxrealtor2,351 views

If You're About To Lose Your Job, Your Car, Or Your House - Watch This 5 Minute Video!

5:12 Added to queue If You’re About To Lose Your Job, Your Car, Or …by carnegieja426 views

3:50 Added to queue Foreclosure fraud Hitler parodyby propanealex74,164 views

Beat Banking Thieves At Their Own Game. GET THEIR CASH: www.yourcashgroup.com

10:57 Added to queue Beat Banking Thieves At Their Own Game. GET TH…by thecashgroup2,269 views

BOB CHAPMAN: BOMBSHELL TRUTH ABOUT FRAUDCLOSURE 10-7-2010

5:17 Added to queue BOB CHAPMAN: BOMBSHELL TRUTH ABOUT FRAUDCLOSUR…by traynickel5,981 views

Rep. Alan Grayson: Politico Is Part of the Permanent Government Established Under Bush

3:19 Added to queue Rep. Alan Grayson: Politico Is Part of the Perm…by RepAlanGrayson2,724 views

8:17 Added to queue Rep. Alan Grayson on Rampant Foreclosure Fraudby TPOCS386 views

Rep. Alan Grayson: You Own the Red Roof Inn, Thanks to the Fed

11:32 Added to queue Rep. Alan Grayson: You Own the Red Roof Inn, Th…by RepAlanGrayson116,875 views

Fraud Factories, MERS, LPS, Forgeries: Rep. Alan Grayson Explains the Foreclosure Fraud Crisis

7:49 Added to queue Fraud Factories, MERS, LPS, Forgeries: Rep. Ala…by DinSFLA35,312 views

Rep. Alan Grayson Battles Against Home Foreclosures In Central Florida

5:02 Added to queue Rep. Alan Grayson Battles Against Home Foreclos…by RepAlanGrayson2,566 views

6:02 Added to queue Fed Lends Two Trillion Without Oversightby AmericanNewsProject52,949 views

Mortgage modifications may lead to foreclosure (via Foreclosureblues)

Mortgage modifications may lead to foreclosure Today, November 07, 2010, 5 hours ago | admin LOS ANGELES — Grocery store owners William and Esperanza Casco were making enough money to stay current on their mortgage, but when JPMorgan Chase & Co. offered a plan that reduced their payments, they figured they could use the extra cash and signed up. The Cascos say they never missed a subsequent payment, so they were horrified when the bank decide … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

One Law for the Rich, One Law for the Poor (via Foreclosureblues)

One Law for the Rich, One Law for the Poor Today, November 07, 2010, 13 hours ago | ceramic cat FROM: http://www.slate.com/id/2273916/ The new foreclosure crisis reveals the shocking unfairness in how the law treats struggling homeowners. By Joseph E. Stiglitz Posted Sunday, Nov. 7, 2010, at 8:24 AM ET The mortgage debacle in the United States has raised deep questions about "the rule of law," the universally accepted hallmark of an advanced, civ … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA…VIDEO DEPOSITION OF NATIONWIDE TITLE CRYSTAL MOORE…VIDEO DEPOSITION OF NATIONWIDE TITLE CLEARING DHURATA DOKO…VIDEO DEPOSITION OF NATIONWIDE TITLE CLEARING BRYAN BLY

Posted on November 8, 2010 by Foreclosureblues

VIDEO DEPOSITION OF NATIONWIDE TITLE CLEARING BRYAN BLY

Today, November 07, 2010, 1 hour ago | dinsfla

Video deposition of alleged robo-signer Bryan Bly taken by attorney Christopher Forrest of The Forrest Law Firm in Pinellas County, FL on Nov. 4, 2010. http://www.foreclosuredefenseflorida.com © 2010 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved. http://www.StopForeclosureFraud.com Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall, Humpty Dumpty had a great fall. All the king’s horses and all the king’s men Couldn’t put […]

Comments (0)

VIDEO DEPOSITION OF NATIONWIDE TITLE CLEARING DHURATA DOKO

Today, November 07, 2010, 3 hours ago | dinsfla

Video deposition of alleged robosigner Dhurata Doko taken by attorney Christopher Forrest of The Forrest Law Firm in Pinellas County, Florida on Nov. 4, 2010. http://www.foreclosuredefenseflorida.com © 2010 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved. http://www.StopForeclosureFraud.com Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall, Humpty Dumpty had a great fall. All the king’s horses and all the king’s men Couldn’t put […]

Comments (0)

SFF EXCLUSIVE: VIDEO DEPOSITION OF NATIONWIDE TITLE CRYSTAL MOORE

Today, November 07, 2010, 4 hours ago | dinsfla

The videotaped depositions of alleged robosigners Crystal Moore, Bryan Bly, Vilma Castro and Dhurata Doko (Nationwide Title Clearing) were taken on Nov. 4, 2010 by Sarasota attorney Christopher Forrest. http://www.ForeclosureDefenseFlorida.com Citi Group (Citi Residential Lending) and American Home Mortgage Servicing, as well as other companies that utilize Nationwide Title Clearing for assignments including Deutsche Bank, One […]

Utah class action citing FDCPA (via Foreclosureblues)

Utah class action citing FDCPA Today, November 06, 2010, 1 hour ago | Rob Harrington Some action going on in non-judicial Utah…. Coleman, et al vs BoA, Mers, Wells Fargo, et al. http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2010/11/05/utah-class-action-coleman-v-bofa-recontrust-mers-wells-fargo-hsbc-us-bank-keybank-bny-mellon/ … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

Why Are Banks Foreclosing? (via Foreclosureblues)

Why Are Banks Foreclosing? Yesterday, November 05, 2010, 12:12:18 PM | Kevin Drum Mike Konczal makes a familiar point today about the HAMP program, which was supposed to help reduce home foreclosures but, in fact, has accomplished close to nothing: Obama's Treasury team took a system that had a terrible design and doubled-down on it. Servicers aren't modifying mortgages. There's an active empirical debate we'll cover next week over whether or not … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

Forget About Homeowners and Pesky Defense Attorneys (via Foreclosureblues)

Forget About Homeowners and Pesky Defense Attorneys…. Today, November 06, 2010, 2 hours ago | Matthew D. Weidner, Esq. The real heat in this foreclosure war is going to come from the institutional investors. The real interesting in this dynamic is going to be the fact that that the issues raised by we pesky defense attorneys are going to be the very issues raised and pounced upon by the other parties who are really getting screwed in this whole … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

The tunnel people of Las Vegas: How 1,000 live in flooded labyrinth under Sin City's shimmering strip (via Foreclosureblues)

The tunnel people of Las Vegas: How 1,000 live in flooded labyrinth under Sin City's shimmering strip By Daily Mail Reporter Last updated at 11:18 AM on 4th November 2010 Comments (170) Add to My Stories Deep beneath Vegas’s glittering lights lies a sinister labyrinth inhabited by poisonous spiders and a man nicknamed The Troll who wields an iron bar. But astonishingly, the 200 miles of flood tunnels are also home to 1,000 people who eke out a li … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

The American Dream of Home Ownership has become a Nightmare (via Foreclosureblues)

The American Dream of Home Ownership has become a Nightmare Yesterday, November 06, 2010, 10:45:46 PM | moraloutrage Nothing symbolizes America’s dream more than home ownership. Former President Franklin D. Roosevelt once said that a country of homeowners would be “invincible.” More recently, former President George W. Bush said, “Owning a home lies at the heart of the American dream”. By the 1960s, two-thirds of Americans owned a home. Now, 11 m … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

Eliminating Foreclosure Fraud: Setting the Record Straight on Bank of America, Part 2: (via Foreclosureblues)

Eliminating Foreclosure Fraud: Setting the Record Straight on Bank of America, Part 2: Friday, November 05, 2010, 1:02:37 PM | Randall Wray William K. Black is an Associate Professor of Economics and Law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. He is a white-collar criminologist and was a senior financial regulator. He is the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One. L. Randall Wray is a Professor of Economics at the University of Mis … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

talk to someone by the numbers

Property Preservation Servicer Contacts
Company Names Mailing Information Key Contacts Title/Department Phone
Amtrust Bank 1111 Chester Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44144 Jaques Hawkins
jhawkins@amtrust.com

Stephen Murphy
smurphy3@amtrust.com
Property Preservation Specialist, Foreclosure Dept.
Property Preservation Specialist, Foreclosure Dept. 216-588-5936

216-588-4541
American Home Mortgage 1525 S. Beltline Road
Coppell, TX 75067 Christine Morse
Christine.Morse@AHMSI3.com

Renena Summerfield
Renena.Summerfield@AHMSI3.com
Property Preservation Specialist

Property Preservation Specialist
469-645-3000, Ext 50229

469-645-3000, Ext. 50304
Aurora Loan Services 10350 Park Meadows Drive
Littleton, CO 80124 Brandon McGill AVP, Property Services 720-945-4775
Bank of America 400 National Way, Simi
Valley, CA 93065

301 E. Vanderbilt Way
San Bernardino, CA 92408

301 E. Vanderbilt Way
San Bernardino, CA 92408
Brian Zamani
brian.zamini@bankofamerica.com

Tiaquanda S. Turner
tiaquanda.turner@bankofamerica.com

Martha (Marta) Fulgham Sanchez
martha.fulgham@bankofamerica.com

Brendan Gail
brendan.gail@bankofamerica.com
AVP, FHA Conveyance/Claims

AVP, FHA Conveyance/Claims

VP, Control Tower/Field Services

VP, Operations/Field Services
805-306-8274

972-526-2353

972-526-6711

909-806-2525
BB&T 301 College Street
6th Floor
Greenville, SC 29601 PropertyPreservation@bbandt.com 800-827-3700
Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC 1610 E St. Andrew
Santa Ana, CA 92705 Sharif Touny
sharif.touny@carringtonms.com

Chris Castruita
chris.castruita@carringtonms.com

Victor Revis
victor.revis@carringtonms.com
Director of Default

Preservation

REO Manager
949-517-5162

949-517-5380

949-517-5598
Capital One P.O. Box 259330
Plano, TX 75025-9330 Jeremy Atkinson

Elaine Parker

Derrick Weber
dxweber@chevychasebank.net
Default Control

Default Control

Default Control
469-238-7041

469-238-7062

469-238-7062
Central Mortgage Company 801 John Barrow Road
Ste. 1
Little Rock, AR 72205 Shelia Roeling
Sroeling@Arvest.com

Chellie Stewart
MKStewart@Arvest.com

Jan Davis
JKDavis@Arvest.com
Asset Preservation Specialist-Default Asset Management Department
REO Supervisor-Default Asset Management Department
Default Asset Manager, Default Asset Management Department 501-716-4810

501-716-5758

501-716-5614
Chase 800 Brooksedge Blvd.
Westerville, OH 43081
Attn: MC OH1-8020 Michelle R. Stevens-Schultz
michelle.r.schultz@chase.com

Vicky Beever
vicky.beever@chase.com
Officer – Property Preservation & Hazard Claims
Officer – Property Preservation 614-776-8031

614-776-7010
Citi Mortgage 1000 Technology Drive
O’Fallon, MO 63368
MS 323 code.violation@citi.com

securing.needed@citi.com

David Mazanek
david.mazanek@safeguardproperties.com
Code Violations Department
Property Preservation Department
Field Service Contact 877-290-3997, Option 2

877-290-3997, Option 1

800-852-8306, Ext 1261
Dovenmuehle Mortgage, Inc. 1 Corporate Drive
Suite 360
Lake Zurich, IL 60047 Paula Borshell
borshep1@dmicorp.com

Rachel Deuser
deuserr1@dmicorp.com
Property Preservation Department Manager

Property Preservation Department Supervisor
847-550-7388

847-550-7514
Everhome Mortgage 8100 Nations Way
Jacksonville, FL 32256 Shannon Hudson
shannon.hudson@everhomemortgage.com Supervisor, Property Preservation 866-918-4507
Fannie Mae 14221 Dallas Parkway
Ste. 1000
Dallas, TX 75254 Elonda Crockett
property_preservation@fanniemae.com

Michael Lawler

Paul Hayes
Vice President, REO Fulfillment

Director, Loss Mitigation-Credit
Manager, REO Foreclsoure-Credit
972-773-4663

972-773-4663

972-773-4663
Fifth Third Bank 5001 Kingsley Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45227
MD 1MOB1o Jennifer Lewis
jennifer.leewis@53.com

Jill Cannon
jill.cannon@mcsnow.com
Supervisor. Property Preservation

Director, MCS
513-358-8575

214-451-0787
First Bank Mortgage 1 First Missouri Center
St. Louis, MO 63141 Karen Hanawinkel
karen.hanawinkel@fbol.com

Lou Sanders
lou.sanders@fbol.com

Autumn Kingsbury-Buck
kingsburybuck@fbol.com
Foreclosure Manager

Loss Mitigation Manager

Collection Manager
314-205-3118

314-205-3124

314-579-1659
First Niagara Bank 6950 S. Transit Rd.
PO Box 514
Lockport, NY 14095-0514 Trish Harris
trish.harris@fnfg.com

Christina Palmer
christina.palmer@fnfg.com
Collections

Recovery Services
716-932-3448

716-932-3463
Franklin Credit 101 Hudson Street
Jersey City, NJ 07302 Glenn Murphy
gmurphy@franklincredit.com Vice President 201-604-1800
Freddie Mac 8000 Jones Branch Drive
McLean, VA 22102 Joe Moschetto
joesph_moschetto@freddiemac.com

Deloise Browne-Miller
Deloise_E_Browne-Miller@freddiemac.com

Mahad Ali
mahad_ali@freddiemac.com
Senior Manager-FC/Bankruptcy Operations

Unit Mnaager-FC/Bankruptcy

FC/Bankruptcy Associate
703-388-7820

703-7624802

703-762-4055
GMAC Mortgage Corporation 3451 Hammond Ave.
Waterloo, IA 50702-5345 Patric F. McCool
pat.mccool@gmacm.com Key Partner Manager Analyst 319-236-4733
HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. Mortgage Services
636 Grand Regency Blvd.
Brandon, FL 33510 Property Preservation Department Team
us.mortgage.property.preservation.team@us.hsbc.com Property Preservation Department 866-411-3810, Option 3
HSBC Mortgage Corporation Mortgage Corporation
2929 Walden ave., Depew
NY 14073 Code Violations Department
code.violations@safeguardproperties.com Safeguard Properties/Field Service Contact 800-852-8306, Ext 2173
HUD Prior To Conveyance: See MCB Below
http://www.hud.gov/offices/hsg/sfh/reo/mm/
mminfo.cfm

Post Conveyance: Follow Link For State Coverages & Contacts

Key Bank 4910 Tiedeman Road
Brooklyn, OH 44114 Lori Tierney
Liberty Bank 2251 Rombach Ave.
Wilmington, OH 45177 JB Stamper
Litton Loan Servicing 4828 Loop Cebtral Drive
Houston, TX 77081 Terrell Phearse
terrell.phearse@littonloan.com

Sharon Graham
Sharon.Graham@littonloan.com

Amy West
Amy.West@littonloan.com

Linda Milan
Linda.Milan@littioloan.com
Property Preservation Processor

Property Preservation Processor

Property Preservation Team Lead

Property Preservation Supervisor
713-218-4824

713-218-4666

713-218-4658

713-218-4669
M&T Bank One Fountain Plaza
6th Floor
Buffalo, NY 14203 Preservation Manager
propertypreservation@mtb.com

David Mazanek
david.mazanek@safeguardproperties.com
Preservation Department

Field Service Contact
800-724-1633

800-852-8306, Ext. 1261
Michaelson, Connor & Boul, Inc. (MCB) 4400 Will Rogers Parkway
Ste. 300
Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Ryan McDoulett
ryan.mcdoulett@mcbreo.com

Greg Nelson
greg.nelson@mcbreo.com

Sheree McClure
sheree.mcclure@mcbreo.com

Donna Telles
donna.telles@mcbreo.com

Kimberly Bell
kimberly.bell@mcbreo.com

Goeff Grafford
goeff.grafford@mcbreo.com

Damon Kornele
damon.kornele@mcbreo.com
Overallowables & Extensions

Occupied Conveyance Requests

Claims Department

Title Department

Appeals Department

Reconveyance Department
405-595-2000

405-595-2000

405-595-2000
Midland Mortgage/MidFirst Bank 999 NW Grand Blvd.
Oklahoma City, OK 73118 Midfirst Property Preservation
property.preservation@midfirst.com

Safeguard Code Violations
code.violations@safeguardproperties.com

MCS Code Violations
codeviolations@mcsnow.com

Mortgage Contracting Services One Urban Centre – Suite 950
4830 West Kennedy Blvd.
Tampa, FL 33609 Code.Compliance@mcsnow.com Field Service Provider 813-387-1100
Ocwen Financial Corporation 2300 M Street, NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20037 Tara Williams
tara.williams@altisource.com

Jasbir Chawdhary
jasbir.chawdhary@altisource.com
Vice President
Field Services

Senior Manager
Property Preservation and Inspection
(713) 647-8990
(800) 280-3863
Ex 296191
One West Bank 2900 Esperanza Crossing
Austin, TX 78758 Kim Magel
Kim.Magel@owb.com

Leah Collins
Leah.Collins@owb.com
Supervisor, Property Preservation (Pre-sale)

Supervisor, Property Preservation (REO)
512-506-6852

512-250-2859
PA Housing Finance Agency 211 North Front Street
PO Box8029
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8029 Tom Gouker
tgouker@phfa.org

Bonita Russell
brussell@phfa.org

Jennifer Smallwood
jsmallwood@phfa.org

Dave Mazanek
david.mazanek@safeguardproperties.com
Foreclosure Manager

Conventional REO Manager

FHA REO Manager

Field Services Provider
717-780-3869

717-780-1857

717-780-1844

800-852-8306, 1261
PHH Mortgage 2001 Bishops Gate Blvd
Mount Laurel, NJ 08002 Bieu T. Corl
bieu.corl@mortgagefamily.com

Dana Young
dana.young@mortgagefamily.com

Kelly Smyth
kelly.smyth@mortgagefamily.com

Safeguard Code Violations
code.violations@safeguardproperties.com

MCS Code Violations
codeviolations@mcsnow.com
P&P Rep II/Claims-REO

Claims Supervisor, REO Dept.

Claims Assistant Supervisor
856-917-8373

405-964-5676

856-917-8433

800-852-8306, Ext 2173

813-387-1100
PNC Mortgage (formally National City), dba Commonwealth United Mortgage, Accubank Mortgage and MidAmerica Bank 3232 Newmark Drive
Miamisburg, OH 45342 Property Preservation Team:
propertypreservation@pncmortgage.com

Gail Klein
gail.klein@pncmortgage.com

Julie Kick
Julie.Kick@pncmortgage.com

Dave Mazanek
david.mazanek@safeguardproperties.com
Process Leader

Process Manager

Field Services Contact/Safeguard Properties
937-910-4952

937-910-4563

937-910-3543

800-852-8306, Ext. 1261
Regions Mortgage 215 Forrest St.
PO Box 18001
Hattiesburg, MS 39401 Denise McLaurin
Denise.Mclaurin@regions.com

Paula Gilliland
paula.gilliland@regions.com
Legal Claims Processor 601-554-2386

601-554-2463
Residential Credit Solutions 4282 North Freeway
Ft. Worth, TX 76137 Susan Jorgensen
sjorgensen@residentialcredit.com

Jeff Gideon
jgideon@residentialcredit.com

Alicia Wood
awood@residentialcredit.com
Property Coordinator (REO)

VP, FC, BK & REO

VP, Loan Administration
817-321-6028

817-321-6015

817-321-6016
RRR 92 W 3900 South
Salt Lake City, UT 84107 Joe Arico
joe.arico@rrreview.com VP 801-293-2658
Safeguard Properties code.enforcement.violations@safeguard
properties.com Field Service Provider 800-852-8306, 2173
Saxon Mortgage Services 4708 Mercantile Drive, North, Fort Worth, TX 76137 Renee Tello
TelloR@saxonmsi.com

Peter Gilkey
GilkeyP@saxonmsi.com

Code Violations
CodeViolations@saxonmsi.com
Senior Manager, Property Preservation

Senior Manager, Property Preservation

Distribution Desk
817-665-7966

682-647-4993
SC State Housing 300C Outlet Pointe Blvd.
Columbia, SC 29210 Lisa E. Rivers
lisa.rivers@schousing.com Director, Mortgage Servicing 803-896-9384
Sovereign Bank Mail Code 10-6438-MD4
601 Penn Street
Reading, PA 19601 Connie Cocroft
Ccocroft@sovereignbank.comCcocroft@
sovereignbank.com

Shannon Lippert
Slippert@sovereignbank.com

Heather Solley
Hsolley@sovereignbank.com
Consumer Default VP

Consumer Default Manager

Consumer Default Manager
610-378-6313

610-378-6323

610-378-6879
Specialized 8742 Lucent Blvd.
Suite 300
Highland Ranch, CO 80129 Susan Beck
susan.beck@sls.net VP Consumer Support OP/DS 720-241-7385
Suntrust Mortgage, Inc. Foreclosure Dept. RVW3064
1001 Semmes Ave.
Fourth Florr
Richmond, VA 23224 Lorrie Pond
Lorrie.pond@suntrust.com

Tammi Stubbs
Tammi.stubbs@suntrust.com

Natish King
Natish.King@suntrust.com
AVP, Post Foreclosure & Property Preservation

Property Preservation Supervisor

Property Preservation Team Lead
804-319-4797

804-291-2515

804-319-1212
Wells Fargo Home Mortgage 1 Home Campus
Des Moines, IA 50328 Andrew Hohensee
andrew.d.hohensee@wellsfargo.com

Code Violations
codeviolations@wellsfargo.com

CoreLogic Field Services
wellsinquiries@corelogic.com

LPS Field Services
high.risk@lpsvcs.com

Mortgage Contracting Services
codeviolations@mcsnow.com
Violation Specialist

Field Service Provider

Field Service Provider
414-214-4383

440-633-4100, Option 3, Option 1

813-387-1100

* Spread the word
* StumbleUpon
* Digg
* Reddit
* Share
*

*
* Print
*
* Facebook
* Email
*
* Press This
*

Filed under: CDO, CORRUPTION, Eviction, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, bubble, currency, foreclosure, securities fraud
« Georgia Notary Fraud Revealed by TV Investigation Developer In the Shadows: Be Careful of What You Ask For »

Countrywide Financial Bankruptcy a Possibility for Bank of America (via Livinglies's Weblog)

Countrywide Financial Bankruptcy a Possibility for Bank of America Countrywide Financial, the distressed mortgage-lending arm of Bank of America, could file for bankruptcy, according to a leading stock analyst.Financial analyst Mike Mayo, who works for Credit Agricole, released a report this week saying the company might file for bankruptcy because it is still technically separate from Bank of America, according to a Wall Street Journal report. … Read More

via Livinglies's Weblog

LUCY VUKI et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY, Respondent; HSBC BANK USA, Real Party in Interest

Filed 10/29/10
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
LUCY VUKI et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY,
Respondent;
HSBC BANK USA,
Real Party in Interest.
G043544
(Super. Ct. No. 30-2010-00360268)
O P I N I O N
Original proceedings; petition for a writ of mandate to challenge an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, David C. Velasquez, Judge. Petition denied.
Law Offices of Moses S. Hall and Moses S. Hall for Petitioners.
No appearance for Respondent.
Severson & Werson, Suzanne M. Hankins, Jarlath M. Curran II and Jan T. Chilton for Real Party in Interest.
* * *
2
Lucy and Manatu Vuki lost their Buena Park home to foreclosure. The sale took place October 7, 2009, with their erstwhile lender, HSBC Bank USA (HSBC), as the buyer at the foreclosure sale. In early January 2010 the Vukis stipulated to entry of judgment in an unlawful detainer action (denominated a “Limited Civil” action) brought against them by HSBC. The stipulation provided for an immediate writ of possession, but allowed the Vukis to remain in the house until January 26, 2010.
However, the day before January 26, the Vukis filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. It took HSBC just a little more than 60 days to obtain relief from the automatic stay, which it did on March 30, 2010. Six days after that, on April 6, 2010, the Vukis filed this state court action against HSBC for, among other things, statutory violation of Civil Code sections 2923.52 and 2923.53.
On April 9, three days later, they filed an application for a temporary restraining order seeking a stay of eviction. Three days after that, on April 12, the trial court denied the request for that restraining order. The eviction was thus free to proceed.
But then the Vukis filed this writ proceeding on April 16. On April 20 this court stayed the eviction pending further order. In particular, we wanted to consider the scope of Civil Code sections 2923.52 and 2923.53, a question of first impression. (All further undesignated statutory references will be to the Civil Code.)
We have now heard oral argument in this proceeding. Because of the importance of the statutory issues presented, we publish this opinion explaining the reasons we deny the requested writ. (See Hecht, Solberg, Robinson, Goldberg & Bagley LLP v. Superior Court (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 579, 584 [denying petition but issuing opinion “in an effort to clarify” law on issue]; Greenlining Institute v. Public Utilities Com. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1324, 1326, 1329 [same].)
In particular, we conclude that, unlike section 2923.5 as construed by this court in Mabry v. Superior Court (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 208 (Mabry), neither section 2923.52 or section 2923.53 provides any private right of action, even a very limited one as this court found in Mabry.
3
We also address a related question of the operation of section 2923.54. Subdivision (b) of that statute is clear that: “Failure to comply with Section 2923.52 or 2923.53 shall not invalidate any sale that would otherwise be valid under Section 2924f.” The Vukis, however, claim that the statute does not apply to lenders who themselves buy the property at foreclosure, i.e., to lenders who cannot claim the status of bona fide purchasers. This argument fails since any claim which the Vukis might have to invalidate the foreclosure sale based on sections 2923.52 and 2923.53 necessarily entails a private right of action which the statutes do not give them.
DISCUSSION
1. The Operation of Sections 2923.52 and 2923.53
a. basic requirements for a loan modification program
Civil Code section 2923.52 imposes a 90-day delay in the normal foreclosure process. But Civil Code section 2923.53 allows for an exemption to that delay if lenders have loan modification programs that meet certain criteria. Before section 2923.52 was enacted, there was a minimum of three months from any notice of default until any foreclosure sale (§ 2924, subd. (a)(3)). After the enactment of section 2923.52, at least for certain loans, another 90 days must be included “in order to allow the parties to pursue a loan modification to prevent foreclosure.” However, if lenders meet the requirements of section 2923.53, they are exempted from the 90-day delay imposed by section 2923.52.
Those requirements are set forth in subdivision (a) of section 2923.53. Readers should note the theme that the requirements are a matter of a general program, evaluated by regulatory commissioners:
“(1) The loan modification program is intended to keep borrowers whose principal residences are homes located in California in those homes . . . .
“(2) The loan modification program targets a ratio of the borrower‟s housing-related debt to the borrower‟s gross income of 38 percent or less, on an aggregate basis in the program.
4
“(3) The loan modification program includes some combination of the following features:
“(A) An interest rate reduction, as needed, for a fixed term of at least five years.
“(B) An extension of the amortization period for the loan term, to no more than 40 years from the original date of the loan.
“(C) Deferral of some portion of the principal amount of the unpaid principal balance until maturity of the loan.
“(D) Reduction of principal.
“(E) Compliance with a federally mandated loan modification program.
“(F) Other factors that the commissioner determines are appropriate. In determining those factors, the commissioner may consider efforts implemented in other jurisdictions that have resulted in a reduction in foreclosures.
“(4) When determining a loan modification solution for a borrower under the loan modification program, the servicer seeks to achieve long-term sustainability for the borrower.” (Italics added.)
b. application for an exemption
Subdivision (b) of section 2923.53 sets forth the process by which a lender may obtain an exemption from an otherwise applicable 90-day delay. Everything in the exemption process, in short, is funneled through the relevant commissioner:
“(b)(1) A mortgage loan servicer may apply to the commissioner for an order exempting loans that it services from Section 2923.52. If the mortgage loan servicer elects to apply for an order, the application shall be in the form and manner determined by the commissioner.
“(2) Upon receipt of an initial application for exemption under this section, the commissioner shall immediately notify the applicant of the date of receipt of the application and shall issue a temporary order, effective from that date of receipt, exempting the mortgage loan servicer from the provisions of subdivision (a) of Section
5
2923.52. The temporary order shall remain in effect until a final order has been issued by the commissioner pursuant to paragraph (3). If the initial application for exemption is denied pursuant to paragraph (3), the temporary order shall remain in effect for 30 days after the date of denial.
“(3) Within 30 days of receipt of an initial or revised application, the commissioner shall make a final determination on whether the application meets the criteria of subdivision (a). If, after review of the application, the commissioner concludes that the mortgage loan servicer has a comprehensive loan modification program that meets the requirements of subdivision (a), the commissioner shall issue a final order exempting the mortgage loan servicer from the requirements of Section 2923.52. If the commissioner concludes that the loan modification program does not meet the requirements of subdivision (a), the application for exemption shall be denied and a final order shall not be issued.
“(4) A mortgage loan servicer may submit a revised application if its application for exemption is denied.” (Italics added.)
c. enforcement of the statute
Similar to subdivision (b), subdivisions (c) and (d) of section 2923.53 commit enforcement of the statute to the relevant commissioner. That particular commissioner is given legislative authority to issue regulations fleshing out the process set forth in sections 2923.52 and 2923.53:
“(c) The commissioner may revoke a final order, upon reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard, if the mortgage loan servicer has submitted a materially false or misleading application or if the approved loan modification program has been materially altered from the loan modification program on which the exemption was based. A revocation by the commissioner shall not be retroactive.
“(d) The commissioner shall adopt, no later than 10 days after the date this section takes effect, emergency and final regulations to clarify the application of this section and Section 2923.52, including the creation of the application for mortgage loan
6
servicers and requirements regarding the reporting of loan modification data by mortgage loan servicers.” (Italics added.)
Along the same lines, section 2923.53, subdivision (h), makes enforcement a matter of losing a license:
“(h) Any person who violates any provision of this section or Section 2923.52 shall be deemed to have violated his or her license law as it relates to these provisions.”
d. public assessment
Subdivision (e) sets forth requirements making the relevant commissioner report back to the Legislature on how the whole process is going, generally and throughout the state. Readers should note that the operation contemplates a sample for purposes of a report that does not even necessarily include every loan servicer. That is, the scope of the assessment process is one which is within the discretion of the relevant commissioner:
“(e) Three months after the first exemption is issued pursuant to subdivision (b) by order of any commissioner specified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (j), the Secretary of Business, Transportation and Housing shall submit a report to the Legislature regarding the details of the actions taken to implement this section and the numbers of applications received and orders issued. The secretary shall submit an additional report six months from the date of the submission of the first report and every six months thereafter. Within existing resources, the commissioners shall collect, from some or all mortgage loan servicers, data regarding loan modifications accomplished pursuant to this section and shall make the data available on an Internet Web site at least quarterly.” (Italics added.)
By the same token, subdivision (f) of section 2923.53 sets up a public informational system to determine who has exemptions and who doesn‟t:
“(f) The Secretary of Business, Transportation and Housing shall maintain on an Internet Web site a publicly available list disclosing the final orders granting
7
exemptions, the date of each order, and a link to Internet Web sites describing the loan modification programs.”
e. the enforcing commissioners
The definitions section of the legislation comes at the end of the statute. The most significant language here is that “the commissioner” is defined to include any one of three separate heads of executive branch departments:
“(k) For purposes of this section and Sections 2923.52 and 2923.54:
“(1) „Commissioner‟ means any of the following:
“(A) The Commissioner of Corporations for licensed residential mortgage lenders and servicers and licensed finance lenders and brokers servicing mortgage loans and any other entities servicing mortgage loans that are not described in subparagraph (B) or (C).
“(B) The Commissioner of Financial Institutions for commercial and industrial banks and savings associations and credit unions organized in this state servicing mortgage loans.
“(C) The Real Estate Commissioner for licensed real estate brokers servicing mortgage loans.”
f. analysis of the text
The text of sections 2923.52 and 2923.53 stands in sharp contrast to that of section 2923.5, which was the subject of this court‟s decision in Mabry, supra, 185 Cal.App.4th 208. As the italicized language quoted above shows, sections 2923.52 and 2923.53, read together, create a structure much more resembling the regulatory structure over general insurance industry claims practices that the Supreme Court held to be without a private right of action in Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287. Enforcement of sections 2923.52 and 2923.53 is committed to regulatory agencies, which have implicit power to terminate the license of any company whose program is not in compliance. By contrast, in Mabry, nothing in the subject
8
statute (§ 2923.5) suggested that its enforcement was committed to a regulatory structure, and the individual, case-by-case approach of the statute indicated otherwise. (See Mabry, supra, 185 Cal.App.4th at p. 219 [“the enforcement mechanism at hand, in direct contrast to the one in Moradi-Shalal, is one that strongly implies individual enforcement of the statute”].) Not only is there no express unmistakable private right to sue (see Lu v. Hawaiian Gardens Casino, Inc. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 592, 597), there is a virtually unmistakable intent not to allow a private right to sue.
2. The Operation of Section 2923.54
Section 2923.54 first imposes a requirement that a notice of sale give information about whether the servicer has, or has not, obtained an exemption from the 90-day delay provisions of section 2923.52. But then section 2923.54 makes clear that whatever else is the case as regards actual compliance or noncompliance with sections 2923.52 and 2923.53, it will not invalidate any otherwise valid foreclosure sale:
“(b) Failure to comply with Section 2923.52 or 2923.53 shall not invalidate any sale that would otherwise be valid under Section 2924f.”
The Vukis argue that there is an implied exception in section 2923.54‟s used of the word “otherwise,” (as in “otherwise be valid under Section 2924f”). Their theory is that Section 2924f only protects bona fide purchasers for value (“BFP‟s”), and in this case HSBC cannot be a BFP because it would have purchased the Vukis‟ home knowing of its own noncompliance with section 2923.52 or 2923.53.
The argument fails because, as shown above, any noncompliance with sections 2923.52 and 2923.53 is entirely a regulatory matter, and cannot be remedied in a private action. The statutory scheme contains no express or implied exceptions for any lender who buys property knowing that it may not have complied with sections 2923.52 and 2923.53.
9
CONCLUSION
Because the Vukis claim for relief against the impending eviction rests entirely on alleged violations of statutes which afford them no private right of action, we need not address the additional argument made by HSBC that their stipulation for judgment in the unlawful detainer action is itself preclusive of their claim.
The stay of the eviction is hereby discharged. The petition for the requested writ is denied.
RYLAARSDAM, ACTING P. J.
WE CONCUR:
MOORE, J.
ARONSON, J.

recent cases on foreclosure law

California Cases – 2004 to Present
Including Federal cases interpreting California law
LISTED WITH MOST RECENT CASES FIRST
Go to cases 2000 – 2003

Vuki v. Superior Court Docket
Cal.App. 4th Dist., Div. 3 (G043544) 10/29/10TRUSTEE’S SALES: Unlike section 2923.5 as construed by this court in Mabry v. Superior Court (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 208, neither Section 2923.52 or Section 2923.53 provides any private right of action, even a very limited one as this court found in Mabry. Civil Code section 2923.52 imposes a 90-day delay in the normal foreclosure process. But Civil Code section 2923.53 allows for an exemption to that delay if lenders have loan modification programs that meet certain criteria. The only enforcement mechanism is that a violation is deemed to be a violation of lenders license laws. Section 2923.54 provides that a violation of Sections 2923.52 or 2923.53 does not invalidate a trustee’s sale, and plaintiff also argued that a lender is not entitled to a bona fide purchaser protection. The court rejected that argument because any noncompliance is entirely a regulatory matter, and cannot be remedied in a private action.

Abers v. Rounsavell Docket
Cal.App. 4th Dist., Div. 3 (G040486) 10/18/10LEASES: Leases of residential condominium units required a re-calculation of rent after 30 years based on a percentage of the appraised value of the “leased land”. The term “leased land” was defined to consist of the condominium unit and an undivided interest in the common area of Parcel 1, and did not include the recreational area (Parcel 2), which was leased to the Homeowners Association. The Court held that the language of the leases was clear. The appraisals were to be based only on the value of the lessees’ interest in Parcel 1 and not on the value of the recreational parcel.

UNPUBLISHED: Residential Mortgage Capital v. Chicago Title Ins. Company Docket
Cal.App. 1st Dist. (A125695) 9/20/10ESCROW: An escrow holder released loan documents to a mortgage broker at the broker’s request in order to have the borrowers sign the documents at home. They were improperly backdated and the broker failed to provide duplicate copies of the notice of right to rescind. Due these discrepancies, the lender complied with the borrower’s demand for a rescission of the loan, and filed this action against the escrow holder for amounts reimbursed to the borrower for finance charges and attorney’s fees. The Court held that the escrow holder did not breach a duty to the lender because it properly followed the escrow instructions, and it is common for escrow to release documents to persons associated with the transaction in order for them to be signed elsewhere.

Starr v. Starr Docket
Cal.App. 2nd Dist. (B219539) 9/30/10COMMUNITY PROPERTY: In a divorce action the Court ordered the husband to convey title to himself and his former wife. Title had been taken in the husband’s name and the wife executed a quitclaim deed. But Family Code Section 721 creates a presumption that a transaction that benefits one spouse was the result of undue influence. The husband failed to overcome this presumption where the evidence showed that the wife executed the deed in reliance on the husband’s representation that he would subsequently add her to title. The husband was, nevertheless, entitled to reimbursement for his separate property contribution in purchasing the property.

Malkoskie v. Option One Mortgage Corp. Docket
Cal.App. 2nd Dist. (B221470) 9/23/10TRUSTEE’S SALES: After plaintiff stipulated to a judgment in an unlawful detainer action, she could not challenge the validity of the trustee’s sale in a subsequent action because the subsequent action is barred by collateral estoppel. Because the action was barred, the court did not reach the question of the validity of the trustee’s sale based on the substitution of trustee being recorded after trustee’s sale proceedings had commenced and based on assignments of the deed of trust into the foreclosing beneficiary being recorded after the trustee’s deed.

Lee v. Fidelity National Title Ins. Co. Docket
Cal.App. 1st Dist. (A124730) 9/16/10TITLE INSURANCE:
1. The insureds could have reasonably expected that they were buying a title insurance policy on APN 22, and not just APN 9, where both the preliminary report and policy included a reference to APN 22, listed exclusions from coverage that were specific to APN 22, and attached an assessor’s parcel map with an arrow pointing to both APN 9 and 22.
2. A preliminary report is merely an offer to issue a title policy, but an insured has the right to expect that the policy will be consistent with the terms of the offer.
3. There was a triable issue of fact as to whether a neighbor’s construction of improvements on APN 22 was sufficient to commence the running of the statute of limitations, where the insureds testified that they did not know the precise location of APN 22 and assumed that the neighbors constructed the improvements on their own property.
4. There was a triable issue of fact as to whether Fidelity National Title Insurance Company acted as escrow holder or whether the escrow was conducted by its affiliate, Fidelity National Title Company (only the insurance company was named as a defendant).

Vanderkous v. Conley Docket
Cal.App. 1st Dist (A125352) 9/2/10QUIET TITLE: 1) In a quiet title action the court has equitable powers to award compensation as necessary to do complete justice, even though neither party’s pleadings specifically requested compensation. 2) Realizing that the court was going to require plaintiff to compensate defendant in exchange for quieting title in plaintiff’s favor, plaintiff dismissed the lawsuit. However, the dismissal was invalid because it was filed following trial after the case had been submitted to the court.

Purdum v. Holmes Docket
Cal.App. 2nd Dist. (B216493) 7/29/10 Case complete 10/22/10NOTARIES: A notary was sued for notarizing a forged deed. He admitted that he knew the grantor had not signed the deed, but the lawsuit was filed more than six years after the deed was signed and notarized. The court held that the action was barred by the six-year limitation period in C.C.P. 338(f)(3) even though plaintiff did not discover the wrongful conduct until well within the six year period.

Perlas v. GMAC Mortgage Docket
Cal.App. 1st Dist. (A125212) 8/11/10 Case complete 10/10/10DEEDS OF TRUST: Borrowers filed an action against a lender to set aside a deed of trust, setting forth numerous causes of action. Borrowers’ loan application (apparently prepared by a loan broker) falsely inflated the borrowers’ income. In the published portion of the opinion. The court held in favor of the lender, explaining that a lender is not in a fiduciary relationship with borrowers and owes them no duty of care in approving their loan. A lender’s determination that the borrowers qualified for the loan is not a representation that they could afford the loan. One interesting issue in the unpublished portion of the opinion was the court’s rejection of the borrowers’ argument that naming MERS as nominee invalidated the deed of trust because, as borrower argued, the deed of trust was a contract with MERS and the note was a separate contract with the lender.

Soifer v. Chicago Title Company Modification Docket
Cal.App. 2nd Dist. (B217956) 8/10/10TITLE INSURANCE: A person cannot recover for errors in a title company’s informal communications regarding the condition of title to property in the absence of a policy of title insurance or the purchase of an abstract of title. There are two ways in which an interested party can obtain title information upon which reliance may be placed: an abstract of title or a policy of title insurance. Having purchased neither, plaintiff cannot recover for title company’s incorrect statement that a deed of trust in foreclosure was a first lien.

In re: Hastie (Weinkauf v. Florez) Docket Sup.Ct. Docket
Cal.App. 1st Dist. (A127069) 7/22/10 Petition for review by Cal Supreme Ct. filed late and DENIED 9/21/10DEEDS: An administrator of decedent’s estate sought to set aside two deeds on the basis that the grantees were the grandson and granddaughter of decedent’s caregiver. Defendant did not dispute that the transfers violated Probate Code Section 21350, which prohibits conveyances to a fiduciary, including a caregiver, or the fiduciary’s relatives, unless specified conditions are met. Instead, defendant asserted only that the 3-year statute of limitations had expired. The court held that the action was timely because there was no evidence indicating that the heirs had or should have had knowledge of the transfer, which would have commenced the running of the statute of limitations.

Bank of America v. Stonehaven Manor, LLC Docket Sup.Ct. Docket
Cal.App. 3rd Dist. (C060089) 7/12/10 Petition for review by Cal Supreme Ct. DENIED 10/20/10ATTACHMENT: The property of a guarantor of a debt–a debt which is secured by the real property of the principal debtor and also that of a joint and several co-guarantor–is subject to attachment where the guarantor has contractually waived the benefit of that security (i.e. waived the benefit of Civil Code Section 2849).

Luna v. Brownell Docket
Cal.App. 2nd Dist. (B212757) 6/11/10 Case complete 8/17/10DEEDS: A deed transferring property to the trustee of a trust is not void as between the grantor and grantee merely because the trust had not been created at the time the deed was executed, if (1) the deed was executed in anticipation of the creation of the trust and (2) the trust is in fact created thereafter. The deed was deemed legally delivered when the Trust was established.

Mabry v. Superior Court Docket Sup.Ct. Docket
Cal.App. 4th Dist., Div. 3 (G042911) 6/2/10 Petition for review by Cal Supreme Ct. DENIED 8/18/10TRUSTEE’S SALES: The court answered, and provided thorough explanations for, a laundry list of questions regarding Civil Code Section 2923.5, which requires a lender to explore options for modifying a loan with a borrower prior to commencing foreclosure proceedings.
1. May section 2923.5 be enforced by a private right of action? Yes.
2. Must a borrower tender the full amount of the mortgage indebtedness due as a prerequisite to bringing an action under section 2923.5? No.
3. Is section 2923.5 preempted by federal law? No.
4. What is the extent of a private right of action under section 2923.5? It is limited to obtaining a postponement of a foreclosure to permit the lender to comply with section 2923.5.
5. Must the declaration required of the lender by section 2923.5, subdivision (b) be under penalty of perjury? No.
6. Does a declaration in a notice of default that tracks the language of section 2923.5(b) comply with the statute, even though such language does not on its face delineate precisely which one of three categories applies to the particular case at hand? Yes.
7. If a lender forecloses without complying with section 2923.5, does that noncompliance affect the title acquired by a third party purchaser at the foreclosure sale? No.
8. Did the lender comply with section 2923.5? Remanded to the trial court to determine which of the two sides is telling the truth.
9. Can section 2923.5 be enforced in a class action in this case? Not under these facts, which are highly fact-specific.
10. Does section 2923.5 require a lender to rewrite or modify the loan? No.

612 South LLC v. Laconic Limited Partnership Docket
Cal.App. 4th Dist., Div. 1 (D056646) 5/25/10 Case complete 7/26/10ASSESSMENT BOND FORECLOSURE:
1. Recordation of a Notice of Assessment under the Improvement Act of 1911 imparted constructive notice even though the notice did not name the owner of the subject property and was not indexed under the owner’s name. There is no statutory requirement that the notice of assessment be indexed under the name of the property owner.
2. A Preliminary Report also gave constructive notice where it stated: “The lien of special tax for the following municipal improvement bond, which tax is collected with the county taxes. . .”
3. A property owner is not liable for a deficiency judgment after a bond foreclosure because a property owner does not have personal liability for either delinquent amounts due on the bond or for attorney fees incurred in prosecuting the action.

Tarlesson v. Broadway Foreclosure Investments Docket
Cal.App. 1st Dist. (A125445) 5/17/10 Case complete 7/20/10HOMESTEADS: A judgment debtor is entitled to a homestead exemption where she continuously resided in property, even though at one point she conveyed title to her cousin in order to obtain financing and the cousin subsequently conveyed title back to the debtor. The amount of the exemption was $150,000 (later statutorily changed to $175,000) based on debtor’s declaration that she was over 55 years old and earned less than $15,000 per year, because there was no conflicting evidence in the record.

UNPUBLISHED: MBK Celamonte v. Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation Docket Sup.Ct. Docket
Cal.App. 4th Dist., Div. 3 (G041605) 4/28/10 Petition for review by Cal Supreme Ct. DENIED 7/21/10TITLE INSURANCE / ENCUMBRANCES: A recorded authorization for a Mello Roos Assessment constitutes an “encumbrance” covered by a title policy, even where actual assessments are conditioned on the future development of the property.

Plaza Home Mortgage v. North American Title Company Docket Sup.Ct. Docket
Cal.App. 4th Dist., Div. 1 (D054685) 4/27/10 Depublication request DENIED 8/11/10ESCROW / LOAN FRAUD: The buyer obtained 100% financing and managed to walk away with cash ($54,000) at close of escrow. (Actually, the buyer’s attorney-in-fact received the money.) The lender sued the title company that acted as escrow holder, asserting that it should have notified the lender when it received the instruction to send the payment to the buyer’s attorney-in-fact after escrow had closed. The court reversed a grant of a motion for summary judgment in favor of the escrow, pointing out that its decision is narrow, and holding only that the trial court erred when it determined the escrow did not breach the closing instructions contract merely because escrow had closed. The case was remanded in order to determine whether the escrow breached the closing instructions contract and if so, whether that breach proximately caused the lender’s damages.

Garcia v. World Savings Docket Sup.Ct. Docket
Cal.App. 2nd (B214822) 4/9/10 Petition for review and depublication by Cal Supreme Ct. DENIED 6/23/10TRUSTEE’S SALES: A lender told plaintiffs/owners that it would postpone a trustee’s sale by a week to give plaintiffs time to obtain another loan secured by other property in order to bring the subject loan current. Plaintiffs obtained a loan the following week, but the lender had conducted the trustee’s sale on the scheduled date and the property was sold to a third party bidder. Plaintiffs dismissed causes of action pertaining to setting aside the sale and pursued causes of action for breach of contract, wrongful foreclosure and promissory estoppel. The court held that there was no consideration that would support the breach of contract claim because plaintiffs promised nothing more than was due under the original agreement. Plaintiffs also could not prove a cause of action for wrongful foreclosure because that cause of action requires that the borrower tender funds to pay off the loan prior to the trustee’s sale. However, plaintiffs could recover based on promissory estoppel because procuring a high cost, high interest loan by using other property as security is sufficient to constitute detrimental reliance.

LEG Investments v. Boxler Docket
Cal.App. 3rd Dist. (C058743) 4/1/10 Certified for Partial Publication Case complete 6/2/10PARTITION: A right of first refusal in a tenancy in common agreement does not absolutely waive the right of partition. Instead, the right of first refusal merely modifies the right of partition to require the selling cotenant to first offer to sell to the nonselling cotenant before seeking partition. [Ed. note: I expect that the result would have been different if the right of partition had been specifically waived in the tenancy in common agreement.]

Steiner v. Thexton Docket
Cal. Supreme Court (S164928) 3/18/10OPTIONS: A contract to sell real property where the buyer’s performance was entirely conditioned on the buyer obtaining regulatory approval to subdivide the property is an option. Although plaintiffs’ promise was initially illusory because no consideration was given at the outset, plaintiffs’ part performance of their bargained-for promise to seek a parcel split cured the initially illusory nature of the promise and thereby constituted sufficient consideration to render the option irrevocable.

Grotenhuis v. County of Santa Barbara Docket
Cal.App. 2nd Dist. (B212264) 3/15/10 Case complete 5/18/10PROPERTY TAXES: Subject to certain conditions, a homeowner over the age of 55 may sell a principle residence, purchase a replacement dwelling of equal or lesser value in the same county, and transfer the property tax basis of the principal residence to the replacement dwelling. The court held that this favorable tax treatment is not available where title to both properties was held by an individual’s wholly owned corporation. The court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the corporation was their alter ego because that concept is used to pierce the corporate veil of an opponent, and not to enable a person “to weave in and out of corporate status when it suits the business objective of the day.”

Clear Lake Riviera Community Assn. v. Cramer Docket
Cal.App. 1st Dist. (A122205) 2/26/10 Case complete 4/29/10HOMEOWNER’S ASSOCIATIONS: Defendant homeowners were ordered to bring their newly built house into compliance with the homeowners association’s guidelines where the house exceed the guidelines’ height restriction by nine feet. Even though the cost to the defendants will be great, they built the house with knowledge of the restriction and their hardship will not be grossly disproportionate to the loss the neighbors would suffer if the violation were not abated, caused by loss in property values and loss of enjoyment of their properties caused by blocked views. The height restriction was contained in the associations guidelines and not in the CC&R’s, and the association did not have records proving the official adoption of the guidelines. Nevertheless, the court held that proper adoption was inferred from the circumstantial evidence of long enforcement of the guidelines by the association.

Forsgren Associates v. Pacific Golf Community Development Docket Sup. Ct. Docket
Cal.App. 4th Dist., Div. 2 (E045940) 2/23/10 Petition for review by Cal Supreme Ct. DENIED 6/17/10MECHANIC’S LIENS: 1. Owners of land are subject to mechanic’s liens where they were aware of the work being done by the lien claimant and where they failed to record a notice of non-responsibility.
2. Civil Code Section 3128 provides that a mechanic’s lien attaches to land on which the improvement is situated “together with a convenient space about the same or so much as may be required for the convenient use and occupation thereof”. Accordingly, defendant’s land adjacent to a golf course on which the lien claimant performed work is subject to a mechanic’s lien, but only as to the limited portions where a tee box was located and where an irrigation system was installed.
3. The fact that adjacent property incidentally benefits from being adjacent to a golf course does not support extending a mechanic’s lien to that property.
4. The owners of the adjacent property were liable for interest, but only as to their proportionate share of the amount of the entire mechanic’s lien.

Steinhart v. County of Los Angeles Docket
47 Cal.4th 1298 – Cal. Supreme Court (S158007) 2/4/10PROPERTY TAXES: A “change in ownership”, requiring a property tax reassessment, occurs upon the death of a trust settlor who transferred property to a revocable trust, and which became irrevocable upon the settlor’s death. The fact that one trust beneficiary was entitled to live in the property for her life, and the remaining beneficiaries received the property upon her death, did not alter the fact that a change in ownership of the entire title had occurred.

Kuish v. Smith Docket
181 Cal.App.4th 1419 – 4th Dist., Div. 3 (G040743) 2/3/10 Case complete 4/12/10CONTRACTS: 1. Defendants’ retention of a $600,000 deposit designated as “non-refundable” constituted an invalid forfeiture because a) the contract did not contain a valid liquidated damages clause, and b) plaintiff re-sold the property for a higher price, so there were no out-of-pocket damages. 2. The deposit did not constitute additional consideration for extending the escrow because it was labeled “non-refundable” in the original contract.

Kendall v. Walker (Modification attached) Docket
181 Cal.App.4th 584 – 1st Dist. (A105981) 12/30/09 Case complete 3/29/10WATER RIGHTS: An owner of land adjoining a navigable waterway has rights in the foreshore adjacent to his property separate from that of the general public. The court held that the boundary in the waterway between adjacent parcels of land is not fixed by extending the boundary lines into the water in the direction of the last course ending at the shore line. Instead, it is fixed by a line drawn into the water perpendicular to the shore line. Accordingly, the court enjoined defendants from allowing their houseboat from being moored in a manner that crossed onto plaintiffs’ side of that perpendicular boundary line.

Junkin v. Golden West Foreclosure Service Docket
180 Cal.App.4th 1150 – 1st Dist. (A124374) 1/5/10 Case complete 3/12/10USURY: The joint venture exception to the Usury Law, which has been developed by case law, provides that where the relationship between the parties is a bona fide joint venture or partnership, an advance by a joint venturer is an investment and not a loan, making the Usury Law inapplicable. The court applied the exception to a loan by one partner to the other because instead of looking at the loan in isolation, it looked at the entire transaction which it determined to be a joint venture. The case contains a good discussion of the various factors that should be weighed in determining whether the transaction is a bona fide joint venture. The presence or absence of any one factor is not, alone, determinative. The factors include whether or not: 1) there is an absolute obligation of repayment, 2) the investor may suffer a loss, 3) the investor has a right to participate in management, 4) the subject property was purchased from a third party and 5) the parties considered themselves to be partners.

Banc of America Leasing & Capital v. 3 Arch Trustee Services Docket
180 Cal.App.4th 1090 – 4th Dist., Div. 3 (G041480) 12/11/09 Case complete 3/8/10TRUSTEE’S SALES: A judgment lien creditor is not entitled to receive a notice of default, notice of trustee’s sale or notice of surplus sale proceeds unless the creditor records a statutory request for notice. The trustee is required to disburse surplus proceeds only to persons who have provided the trustee with a proof of claim. The burden rests with the judgment creditor to keep a careful watch over the debtor, make requests for notice of default and sales, and to submit claims in the event of surplus sale proceeds.

Park 100 Investment Group v. Ryan Docket
180 Cal.App.4th 795 – 2nd Dist. (B208189) 12/23/09 Case complete 2/26/10LIS PENDENS: 1. A lis pendens may be filed against a dominant tenement when the litigation involves an easement dispute. Although title to the dominant tenement would not be directly affected if an easement right was shown to exist, the owner’s right to possession clearly is affected

2.A recorded lis pendens is a privileged publication only if it identifies an action previously filed with a court of competent jurisdiction which affects the title or right of possession of real property. If the complaint does not allege a real property claim, or the alleged claim lacks evidentiary merit, the lis pendens, in addition to being subject to expungement, is not privileged.

Millennium Rock Mortgage v. T.D. Service Company Modification Docket
179 Cal.App.4th 804 – 3rd Dist. (C059875) 11/24/09 Case complete 1/26/10TRUSTEE’S SALES: A trustee’s sale auctioneer erroneously read from a script for a different foreclosure, although the correct street address was used. The auctioneer opened the bidding with the credit bid from the other foreclosure that was substantially less than the correct credit bid. The errors were discovered after the close of bidding but prior to the issuance of a trustee’s deed. The court held that the errors constituted an “irregularity” sufficient to give the trustee the right to rescind the sale.

The court distinguished 6 Angels v. Stuart-Wright Mortgage, in which the court held that a beneficiary’s negligent miscalculation of the amount of its credit bid was not sufficient to rescind the sale. In 6 Angels the error was totally extrinsic to the proper conduct of the sale itself. Here there was inherent inconsistency in the auctioneer’s description of the property being offered for sale, creating a fatal ambiguity in determining which property was being auctioned.

Fidelity National Title Insurance Company v. Schroeder Docket
179 Cal.App.4th 834 – 5th Dist. (F056339) 11/24/09 Case complete 1/25/10JUDGMENTS: A judgment debtor transferred his 1/2 interest in real property to the other cotenant prior to the judgment creditor recording an abstract of judgment. The court held that if the trial court on remand finds that the transfer was intended to shield the debtor’s property from creditors, then the transferee holds the debtor’s 1/2 interest as a resulting trust for the benefit of the debtor, and the creditor’s judgment lien will attach to that interest. The court also held that the transfer cannot be set aside under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act because no recoverable value remained in the real property after deducting existing encumbrances and Gordon’s homestead exemption.

The case contains a good explanation of the difference between a resulting (“intention enforcing”) and constructive (“fraud-rectifying”) trust. A resulting trust carries out the inferred intent of the parties; a constructive trust defeats or prevents the wrongful act of one of them.

Zhang v. Superior Court Docket Sup.Ct. Docket
Cal.App. 4th Dist., Div. 2 (E047207) 10/29/09 Petition for review by Cal Supreme Ct. GRANTED 2/10/10INSURANCE / BAD FAITH: Fraudulent conduct by an insurer does not give rise to a private right of action under the Unfair Insurance Practices Act (Insurance Code section 790.03 et seq.), but it can give rise to a private cause of action under the Unfair Competition Law (Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.).

Presta v. Tepper Docket
179 Cal.App.4th 909 – 4th Dist., Div. 3 (G040427) 10/28/09 Case complete 1/25/10TRUSTS: An ordinary express trust is not an entity separate from its trustee, like a corporation is. Instead, a trust is merely a relationship by which one person or entity holds property for the benefit of some other person or entity. Consequently, where two men entered into partnership agreements as trustees of their trusts, the provision of the partnership agreement, which required that upon the death of a partner the partnership shall purchase his interest in the partnership, was triggered by the death of one of the two men.

Wells Fargo Bank v. Neilsen Modification Docket Sup.Ct. Docket
178 Cal.App.4th 602 – 1st Dist. (A122626) 10/22/09 (Mod. filed 11/10/09) Petition for review by Cal Supreme Ct. DENIED 2/10/10CIRCUITY OF PRIORITY: The Court follows the rule in Bratcher v. Buckner, even though Bratcher involved a judgment lien and two deeds of trust and this case involves three deeds of trust. The situation is that A, B & C have liens on the subject property, and A then subordinates his lien to C’s lien. The problem with this is that C appears to be senior to A, which is senior to B, which is senior to C, so that each lien is senior and junior to one of the other liens.

The Court held that the lien holders have the following priority: (1) C is paid up to the amount of A’s lien, (2) if the amount of A’s lien exceeds C’s lien, A is paid the amount of his lien, less the amount paid so far to C, (3) B is then paid in full, (4) C is then paid any balance still owing to C, (5) A is then paid any balance still owing to A.

This is entirely fair because A loses priority as to the amount of C’s lien, which conforms to the intent of the subordination agreement. B remains in the same position he would be in without the subordination agreement since his lien remains junior only to the amount of A’s lien. C steps into A’s shoes only up to the amount of A’s lien.

NOTE: The odd thing about circuity of priority cases is that they result in surplus proceeds after a foreclosure sale being paid to senior lienholders. Normally, only junior lienholders and the foreclosed out owner are entitled to share in surplus proceeds, and the purchaser takes title subject to the senior liens.

Schmidli v. Pearce Docket
178 Cal.App.4th 305 – 3rd Dist. (C058270) 10/13/09 Case complete 12/15/09MARKETABLE RECORD TITLE ACT: This case was decided under the pre-2007 version of Civil Code Section 882.020, which provided that a deed of trust expires after 10 years if the maturity date is “ascertainable from the record”. The court held that this provision was not triggered by a Notice of Default, which set forth the maturity date and which was recorded prior to expiration of the 10-year period. NOTE: In 2007, C.C. Section 882.020 was amended to make it clear that the 10-year period applies only where the maturity date is shown in the deed of trust itself.

Nielsen v. Gibson Docket
178 Cal.App.4th 318 – 3rd Dist. (C059291) 10/13/09 Case complete 12/15/09ADVERSE POSSESSION: 1. The “open and notorious” element of adverse possession was satisfied where plaintiff possessed the subject property by actual possession under such circumstances as to constitute reasonable notice to the owner. Defendant was charged with constructive knowledge of plaintiff’s possession, even though defendant was out of the country the entire time and did not have actual knowledge.

2. The 5-year adverse possession period is tolled under C.C.P. Section 328 for up to 20 years if the defendant is “under the age of majority or insane”. In the unpublished portion of the opinion the court held that although the defendant had been ruled incompetent by a court in Ireland, there was insufficient evidence that defendant’s condition met the legal definition of “insane”.

Ricketts v. McCormack Docket Sup.Ct. Docket
177 Cal.App.4th 1324 – 2nd Dist. (B210123) 9/27/09 Petition for review by Cal Supreme Ct. DENIED 12/17/09RECORDING LAW: Civil Code Section 2941(c) provides in part, “Within two business days from the day of receipt, if received in recordable form together with all required fees, the county recorder shall stamp and record the full reconveyance or certificate of discharge.” In this class action lawsuit against the County recorder, the court held that indexing is a distinct function, separate from recording a document, and is not part of section 2941(c)’s stamp-and-record requirement.

The court distinguished indexing, stamping and recording:
Stamping: The “stamping” requirement of Section 2941(c) is satisfied when the Recorder endorses on a reconveyance the order of receipt, the day and time of receipt and the amount of fees paid.
Recording: The reconveyance is “recorded” once the Recorder has confirmed the document meets all recording requirements, created an entry for the document in the “Enterprise Recording Archive” system, calculated the required fees and confirmed payment of the correct amount and, finally, generated a lead sheet containing, among other things, a bar code, a permanent recording number and the words “Recorded/Filed in Official Records.”
Indexing: Government Code Section 27324 requires all instruments “presented for recordation” to “have a title or titles indicating the kind or kinds of documents contained therein,” and the recorder is “required to index only that title or titles captioned on the first page of a document.

Starlight Ridge South Homeowner’s Assn. v. Hunter-Bloor Docket
177 Cal.App.4th 440 – 4th Dist., Div. 2 (E046457) 8/14/09 (Pub. Order 9/3/09) Case complete 10/19/09CC&R’s: Under Code Civ. Proc. Section 1859, where two provisions appear to cover the same matter, and are inconsistent, the more specific provision controls over the general provision. Here the provision of CC&R’s requiring each homeowner to maintain a drainage ditch where it crossed the homeowners’ properties was a specific provision that controlled over a general provision requiring the homeowner’s association to maintain landscape maintenance areas.

First American Title Insurance Co. v. XWarehouse Lending Corp. Docket
177 Cal.App.4th 106 – 1st Dist. (A119931) 8/28/09 Case complete 10/30/09TITLE INSURANCE: A loan policy provides that “the owner of the indebtedness secured by the insured mortgage” becomes an insured under the loan policy. Normally, this means that an assignee becomes an insured. However, where the insured lender failed to disburse loan proceeds for the benefit of the named borrower, an indebtedness never existed, and the warehouse lender/assignee who disbursed money to the lender did not become an insured. The court pointed out that the policy insures against defects in the mortgage itself, but not against problems related to the underlying debt.

NOTE: In Footnote 8 the court distinguishes cases upholding the right of a named insured or its assignee to recover from a title insurer for a loss due to a forged note or forged mortgage because in those cases, and unlike this case, moneys had been actually disbursed or credited to the named borrower by either the lender or its assignee.

Wells Fargo v. D & M Cabinets Docket
177 Cal.App.4th 59 – 3rd Dist. (C058486) 8/28/09 Case complete 10/28/09JUDGMENTS: A judgment creditor, seeking to sell an occupied dwelling to collect on a money judgment, may not bypass the stringent requirements of C.C.P. Section 704.740 et seq. when the sale is conducted by a receiver appointed under C.C.P Section 708.620. The judgment creditor must comply with Section 704.740, regardless of whether the property is to be sold by a sheriff or a receiver.

Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma Docket Sup.Ct. Docket
176 Cal.App.4th 1270 – 1st Dist. (A120049) 8/21/09 Petition for review by Cal Supreme Ct. DENIED 12/2/09PREEMPTION: A County ordinance professing to implement the state mobilehome conversion statutes was preempted for the following reasons: (1) Gov. Code Section 66427.5 expressly preempts the power of local authorities to inject other factors when considering an application to convert an existing mobilehome park from a rental to a resident-owner basis, (2) the ordinance is impliedly preempted because the Legislature has established a dominant role for the state in regulating mobilehomes, and has indicated its intent to forestall local intrusion into the particular terrain of mobilehome conversions and (3) the County’s ordinance duplicates several features of state law, a redundancy that is an established litmus test for preemption.

Citizens for Planning Responsibly v. County of San Luis Obispo Docket Sup.Ct. Docket
176 Cal.App.4th 357 – 2nd Dist (B206957) 8/4/09 Petition for review by Cal Supreme Ct. DENIED 10/14/09PREEMPTION: The court held that the State Aeronautics Act, which regulates the development and expansion of airports, did not preempt an initiative measure adopted by the voters because none of the following three factors necessary to establish preemption was present: (1) The Legislature may so completely occupy the field in a matter of statewide concern that all, or conflicting, local legislation is precluded, (2) the Legislature may delegate exclusive authority to a city council or board of supervisors to exercise a particular power over matters of statewide concern, or (3) the exercise of the initiative power would impermissibly interfere with an essential governmental function.

Delgado v. Interinsurance Exchange of the Auto Club of So. Cal. Docket
47 Cal.4th 302 – Cal. Supreme Court (S155129) 8/3/09INSURANCE / BAD FAITH: The case is not as relevant to title insurance as the lower court case, which held that an insurance company acted in bad faith as a matter of law where a potential for coverage was apparent from the face of the complaint. The Supreme Court reversed, basing its decision on the meaning of “accident” in a homeowner’s policy, and holding that an insured’s unreasonable belief in the need for self-defense does not turn the resulting intentional act of assault and battery into “an accident” within the policy’s coverage clause. Therefore, the insurance company had no duty to defend its insured in the lawsuit brought against him by the injured party.

1538 Cahuenga Partners v. Turmeko Properties Docket
176 Cal.App.4th 139 – 2nd Dist. (B209548) 7/31/09 Case complete 10/7/09RECONVEYANCE: [This is actually a civil procedure case that it not of much interest to title insurance business, but it is included here because the underlying action sought to cancel a reconveyance.] The court ordered that a reconveyance of a deed of trust be cancelled pursuant to a settlement agreement. The main holding was that a trial court may enforce a settlement agreement against a party to the settlement that has interest in the subject matter of the action even if the party is not named in the action, where the non-party appears in court and consents to the settlement.

Lee v. Lee Docket
175 Cal.App.4th 1553 – 5th Dist. (F056107) 7/29/09 Case complete 9/28/09DEEDS / STATUTE OF FRAUDS:
1. The Statute of Frauds does not apply to an executed contract, and a deed that is executed by the grantor and delivered to the grantee is an executed contract. The court rejected defendants’ argument that the deed did not reflect the terms of sale under a verbal agreement.
2. While the alteration of an undelivered deed renders the conveyance void, the alteration of a deed after it has been delivered to the grantee does not invalidate the instrument as to the grantee. The deed is void only as to the individuals who were added as grantees after delivery.

White v. Cridlebaugh Docket
178 Cal.App.4th 506 – 5th Dist. (F053843) 7/29/09 (Mod. 10/20/09) Case complete 12/21/09MECHANIC’S LIENS: Under Business and Professions Code Section 7031, a property owner may recover all compensation paid to an unlicensed contractor, in addition to not being liable for unpaid amounts. Furthermore, this recovery may not be offset or reduced by the unlicensed contractor’s claim for materials or other services.

Linthicum v. Butterfield Docket Sup.Ct. Docket
175 Cal.App.4th 259 – 2nd Dist. (B199645) 6/24/09 Petition for review by Cal Supreme Ct. DENIED 9/9/09NOTE: This is a new opinion following a rehearing. The only significant changes from the original opinion filed 4/2/09 (modified 4/8/09) involve the issue of a C.C.P. 998 offer, which is not a significant title insurance or escrow issue.
EASEMENTS: The court quieted title to an easement for access based on the doctrine of “balancing conveniences ” or “relative hardship”. Prohibiting the continued use of the roadway would cause catastrophic loss to the defendants and insignificant loss to the plaintiffs. However, the court remanded the case for the trial court to determine the width of the easement, which should be the minimal width necessary. The court reversed the judgment insofar as it awarded a utility easement to the defendants because they did not seek to quiet title to an easement for utilities, even though they denied the material allegations of that cause of action.

United Rentals Northwest v. United Lumber Products Docket
174 Cal.App.4th 1479 – 5th Dist. (F055855) 6/18/09 Case complete 8/18/09MECHANIC’S LIENS: Under Civil Code Section 3106, a “work of improvement” includes the demolition and/or removal of buildings. The court held that lumber drying kilns are “buildings” so the contractor who dismantled and removed them was entitled to a mechanic’s lien.

People v. Shetty Docket Sup.Ct. Docket
174 Cal.App.4th 1488 – 2nd Dist. (B205061) 6/18/09 Petition for review by Cal Supreme Ct. DENIED 9/30/09HOME EQUITY SALES: This case is not significant from a title insurance standpoint, but it is interesting because it is an example of a successful prosecution under the Home Equity Sales Contract Act (Civil Code Section 1695 et seq.).

In re Marriage of Lund Docket
174 Cal.App.4th 40 – 4th Dist., Div. 3 (G040863) 5/21/09 Case complete 7/27/09COMMUNITY PROPERTY: An agreement accomplished a transmutation of separate property to community property even though it stated that the transfer was “for estate planning purposes”. A transmutation either occurs for all purposes or it doesn’t occur at all.

St. Marie v. Riverside County Regional Park, etc. Docket
46 Cal.4th 282 – Cal. Supreme Court (S159319) 5/14/09OPEN SPACE DEDICATION: Property granted to a Regional Park District is not “actually dedicated” under Public Resources Code Section 5540 for open space purposes until the district’s Board of Directors adopts a resolution dedicating the property for park or open space purposes. Therefore, until the Board of Directors adopts such a resolution, the property may be sold by the District without voter or legislative approval.

Manhattan Loft v. Mercury Liquors Docket Sup.Ct. Docket
173 Cal.App.4th 1040 – 2nd Dist. (B211070) 5/6/09 Petition for review by Cal Supreme Ct. DENIED 8/12/09LIS PENDENS: An arbitration proceeding is not an “action” that supports the recordation of a notice of pendency of action. The proper procedure is for a party to an arbitration agreement to file an action in court to support the recording of a lis pendens, and simultaneously file an application to stay the litigation pending arbitration.

Murphy v. Burch Docket
46 Cal.4th 157 – Cal. Supreme Court (S159489) 4/27/09EASEMENT BY NECESSITY: This case contains a good discussion of the law of easements by necessity, which the court held did not apply in this case to provide access to plaintiff’s property. This means plaintiff’s property is completely landlocked because the parties had already stipulated that a prescriptive easement could not be established.

An easement by necessity arises by operation of law when 1) there is a strict necessity as when a property is landlocked and 2) the dominant and servient tenements were under the same ownership at the time of the conveyance giving rise to the necessity. The second requirement, while not categorically barred when the federal government is the common grantor, requires a high burden of proof to show 1) the intent of Congress to establish the easement under federal statutes authorizing the patent and 2) the government’s lack of power to condemn the easement. Normally, a reservation of an easement in favor of the government would not be necessary because the government can obtain the easement by condemnation.

The court pointed out that there is a distinction between an implied grant and implied reservation, and favorably quotes a treatise that observes: “an easement of necessity may be created against the government, but the government agency cannot establish an easement by necessity over land it has conveyed because its power of eminent domain removes the strict necessity required for the creation of an easement by necessity.”

Abernathy Valley, Inc. v. County of Solano Docket
173 Cal.App.4th 42 – 1st Dist. (A121817) 4/17/09 Case complete 6/22/09SUBDIVISION MAP ACT: This case contains a very good history of California’s Subdivision Map Act statutes. The court held that parcels shown on a 1909 map recorded pursuant to the 1907 subdivision map law are not entitled to recognition under the Subdivision Map Act’s grandfather clause (Government Code Section 66499.30) because the 1907 act did not regulate the “design and improvement of subdivisions”. The court also held that a local agency may deny an application for a certificate of compliance that seeks a determination that a particular subdivision lot complies with the Act, where the effect of issuing a certificate would be to effectively subdivide the property without complying with the Act.

Linthicum v. Butterfield Modification Docket Sup.Ct. Docket
172 Cal.App.4th 1112 – 2nd Dist. (B199645) 4/2/09
SEE NEW OPINION FILED 6/24/09
EASEMENTS: The court quieted title to an easement for access based on the doctrine of “balancing conveniences ” or “relative hardship”. Prohibiting the continued use of the roadway would cause catastrophic loss to the defendants and insignificant loss to the plaintiffs. However, the court remanded the case for the trial court to determine the width of the easement, which should be the minimal width necessary. The court reversed the judgment insofar as it awarded a utility easement to the defendants because they did not seek to quiet title to an easement for utilities, even though they denied the material allegations of that cause of action.

McAvoy v. Hilbert Docket
172 Cal.App.4th 707 – 4th Dist., Div 1 (D052802) 3/24/09 Case complete 5/27/09ARBITRATION: C.C.P. Section 1298 requires that an arbitration provision in a real estate contract be accompanied by a statutory notice and that the parties indicate their assent by placing their initials on an adjacent space or line. The court held that a listing agreement that is part of a larger transaction for the sale of both a business and real estate is still subject to Section 1298, and refused to enforce an arbitration clause that did not comply with that statute.

Peak-Las Positas Partners v. Bollag Modification Docket
172 Cal.App.4th 101 – 2nd Dist. (B205091) 3/16/09 Case complete 5/27/09ESCROW: Amended escrow instructions provided for extending the escrow upon mutual consent which “shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed”. The court held that substantial evidence supported the trial court’s determination that the seller’s refusal to extend escrow was unreasonable. The court pointed out the rule that equity abhors a forfeiture and that plaintiff had paid a non-refundable deposit of $465,000 and spent $5 million in project costs to obtain a lot line adjustment that was necessary in order for the property to be sold.

Alfaro v. Community Housing Improvement System & Planning Assn Modification Docket Sup.Ct. Docket
171 Cal.App.4th 1356 6th Dist. (H031127) 2/19/09 Petition for review by Cal Supreme Ct. DENIED 5/13/09CC&R’s: The court upheld the validity of recorded CC&R’s containing an affordable housing restriction that required property to remain affordable to buyers with low to moderate income. The court reached several conclusions:
1. Constructive notice of recorded CC&R’s is imparted even if they are not referenced in a subsequent deed,
2. CC&R’s may describe an entire tract, and do not need to describe individual lots in the tract,
3. An affordable housing restriction is a reasonable restraint on alienation even if it is of indefinite duration,
4. Defendants had a duty as sellers to disclose the existence of the CC&R’s. Such disclosure was made if plaintiffs were given, prior to close of escrow, preliminary reports that disclosed the CC&R’s.
5. The fact that a victim had constructive notice of a matter from public records is no defense to fraud. The existence of such public records may be relevant to whether the victim’s reliance was justifiable, but it is not, by itself, conclusive.
6. In the absence of a claim that defendants somehow prevented plaintiffs from reading the preliminary reports or deeds, or misled them about their contents, plaintiffs cannot blame defendants for their own neglect in reading the reports or deeds. Therefore, the date of discovery of alleged fraud for failing to disclose the affordable housing restriction would be the date plaintiffs received their preliminary reports or if they did not receive a preliminary report, the date they received their deeds.

Kwok v. Transnation Title Insurance Company Docket Sup.Ct. Docket
170 Cal.App.4th 1562 – 2nd Dist. (B207421) 2/10/09 Petition for review by Cal Supreme Ct. DENIED 4/29/09TITLE INSURANCE: Plaintiffs did not succeed as insureds “by operation of law” under the terms of the title insurance policy after transfer of the property from a wholly owned limited liability company, of which appellants were the only members, to appellants as trustees of a revocable family trust. This case highlights the importance of obtaining a 107.9 endorsement, which adds the grantee as an additional insured under the policy.

Pro Value Properties v. Quality Loan Service Corp. Docket
170 Cal.App.4th 579 – 2nd Dist. (B204853) 1/23/09 Case complete 3/27/09TRUSTEE’S SALES: A Trustee’s Deed was void because the trustee failed to record a substitution of trustee. The purchaser at the sale was entitled to a return of the money paid plus interest. The interest rate is the prejudgment interest rate of seven percent set forth in Cal. Const., Art. XV, Section 1. A trustee’s obligations to a purchaser are based on statute and not on a contract. Therefore, Civil Code Section 3289 does not apply, since it only applies to a breach of a contract that does not stipulate an interest rate.

Sixells v. Cannery Business Park Docket Sup.Ct. Docket
170 Cal.App.4th 648 – 3rd Dist. (C056267) 12/29/08 Petition for review by Cal Supreme Ct. DENIED 3/25/09CONTRACTS: The Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code, Section 66410 et seq.) prohibits the sale of a parcel of real property until a final subdivision map or parcel map has been filed unless the contract to sell the property is “expressly conditioned” upon the approval and filing of a final map (66499.30(e)). Here, the contract satisfied neither requirement because it allowed the purchaser to complete the purchase if, at its election, the subject property was made into a legal parcel by recording a final map or if the purchaser “waived” the recording of a final map. Therefore the contract was void.

Patel v. Liebermensch Docket
45 Cal.4th 344 – Cal. Supreme Court (S156797) 12/22/08SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE: The material factors required for a written contract are the seller, the buyer, the price to be paid, the time and manner of payment, and the property to be transferred, describing it so it may be identified. Here, specific performance of an option was granted even though it was not precise as to the time and manner of payment because where a contract for the sale of real property specifies no time of payment, a reasonable time is allowed. The manner of payment is also a term that may be supplied by implication.

In re Marriage of Brooks and Robinson Docket Sup.Ct. Docket
169 Cal.App.4th 176 – 4th Dist., Div. 2 (E043770) 12/16/08 Request for review and depublication by Cal Supreme Ct. DENIED 3/25/09COMMUNITY PROPERTY: The act of taking title to property in the name of one spouse during marriage with the consent of the other spouse effectively removes that property from the general presumption that the property is community property. Instead, there is a presumption that the parties intended title to be held as stated in the deed. This presumption can only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence of a contrary agreement, and not solely by tracing the funds used to purchase the property or by testimony of an intention not disclosed at the time of the execution of the conveyance. Because the court found that there was no agreement to hold title other than as the separate property of the spouse who acquired title in her own name, it did not reach the issue of whether a purchaser from that spouse was a BFP or would be charged with knowledge of that the seller’s spouse had a community property interest in the property.

The Formula, Inc. v. Superior Court Docket
168 Cal.App.4th 1455 – 3rd Dist. (C058894) 12/10/09 Case complete 2/10/09LIS PENDENS: A notice of litigation filed in another state is not authorized for recording under California’s lis pendens statutes. An improperly filed notice of an action in another state is subject to expungement by a California court, but not under the authority of C.C.P. Section 405.30, and an order of expungement is given effect by being recorded in the chain of title to overcome the effect of the earlier filing.

Ekstrom v. Marquesa at Monarch Beach HOA Docket Sup.Ct. Docket
168 Cal.App.4th 1111 – 4th Dist., Div. 3 (G038537) 12/1/08 Depublication request DENIED 3/11/09CC&R’s: A provision in CC&R’s requiring all trees on a lot to be trimmed so as to not exceed the roof of the house on the lot, unless the tree does not obstruct views from other lots, applies to palm trees even though topping a palm tree will kill it. All trees means “all trees”, so palm trees are not exempt from the requirement that offending trees be trimmed, topped, or removed.

Spencer v. Marshall Docket
168 Cal.App.4th 783 – 1st Dist. (A119437) 11/24/08 Case complete 1/26/09HOME EQUITY SALES: The Home Equity Sales Contract Act applies even where the seller is in bankruptcy and even where the seller’s Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Plan allows the seller to sell or refinance the subject property without further order of the court.

Kachlon v. Markowitz Docket
168 Cal.App.4th 316 – 2nd Dist. (B182816) 11/17/08 Case complete 1/27/09TRUSTEE’S SALES:
1. The statutorily required mailing, publication, and delivery of notices in nonjudicial foreclosure, and the performance of statutory nonjudicial foreclosure procedures, are privileged communications under the qualified, common-interest privilege, which means that the privilege applies as long as there is no malice. The absolute privilege for communications made in a judicial proceeding (the “litigation privilege”) does not apply.
2. Actions seeking to enjoin nonjudicial foreclosure and clear title based on the provisions of a deed of trust are actions on a contract, so an award of attorney fees under Civil Code Section 1717 and provisions in the deed of trust is proper.
3. An owner is entitled to attorney fees against the trustee who conducted trustee’s sale proceedings where the trustee did not merely act as a neutral stakeholder but rather aligned itself with the lender by denying that the trustor was entitled to relief.

Hines v. Lukes Docket
167 Cal.App.4th 1174 – 2nd Dist. (B199971) 10/27/08 Case complete 12/31/08EASEMENTS: [Not significant from a title insurance standpoint]. The underlying dispute concerns an easement but the case involves only civil procedure issues pertaining to the enforcement of a settlement agreement.

Satchmed Plaza Owners Association v. UWMC Hospital Corp. Docket
167 Cal.App.4th 1034 – 4th Dist., Div. 3 (G038119) 10/23/08 Case complete 12/23/08RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL: [Not significant from a title insurance standpoint]. The underlying dispute concerns a right of first refusal but the case involves only civil procedure issues pertaining to a party’s waiver of its right to appeal where it has accepted the benefits of the favorable portion of judgment.

Gray v. McCormick Docket Sup.Ct. Docket
167 Cal.App.4th 1019 – 4th Dist., Div. 3 (G039738) 10/23/08 Petition for review by Cal Supreme Ct. DENIED 1/14/09EASEMENTS: Exclusive easements are permitted under California law, but the use by the owner of the dominant tenement is limited to the purposes specified in the grant of easement, not all conceivable uses of the property.

In re Estate of Felder Docket
167 Cal.App.4th 518 – 2nd Dist. (B205027) 10/9/08 Case complete 12/11/08CONTRACTS: [Not significant from a title insurance standpoint]. The case held that an estate had the right to retain the entire deposit upon a purchaser’s breach of a sales contract even though the estate had only a 1/2 interest in the subject property.

Secrest v. Security National Mortgage Loan Trust Order Modifying Opinion Docket Sup.Ct. Docket
167 Cal.App.4th 544 – 4th Dist., Div. 3 (G039065) 10/9/08, Modified 11/3/08 Petition for review by Cal Supreme Ct. DENIED 12/17/08LOAN MODIFICATION: Because a note and deed of trust come within the statute of frauds, a Forbearance Agreement also comes within the statute of frauds pursuant to Civil Code section 1698. Making the downpayment required by the Forbearance Agreement was not sufficient part performance to estop Defendants from asserting the statute of frauds because payment of money alone is not enough as a matter of law to take an agreement out of the statute, and the Plaintiffs have legal means to recover the downpayment if they are entitled to its return. In addition to part performance, the party seeking to enforce the contract must have changed position in reliance on the oral contract to such an extent that application of the statute of frauds would result in an unjust or unconscionable loss, amounting in effect to a fraud.

FDIC v. Dintino Docket
167 Cal.App.4th 333 – 4th Dist., Div. 1 (D051447) 9/9/08 (Pub. Order 10/2/08) Case complete 12/2/08TRUST DEEDS: A lender who mistakenly reconveyed a deed of trust could not sue under the note because it would violate the one action rule. However, the lender prevailed on its unjust enrichment cause of action. The applicable statute of limitations was the 3-year statute for actions based on fraud or mistake, and not the 4-year statute for actions based on contract. Nevertheless, the action was timely because the statute did not begin to run until the lender reasonably discovered its mistake, and not from the date of recordation of the reconveyance. Finally, the court awarded defendant attorney’s fees attributable to defending the contract cause of action because defendant prevailed on that particular cause of action even though he lost the lawsuit.

California Coastal Commission v. Allen Docket Sup.Ct. Docket
167 Cal.App.4th 322 – 2nd Dist. (B197974) 10/1/08 Petition for review by Cal Supreme Ct. DENIED 1/14/09HOMESTEADS:
1. The assignees of a judgment properly established their rights as assignees by filing with the clerk of the court an acknowledgement of assignment of judgment.
2. The subject property was not subject to a homestead exemption because the debtor transferred the property to a corporation of which he was the sole shareholder. The homestead exemption only applies to the interest of a natural person in a dwelling.
3. The debtor could not claim that he was only temporarily absent from a dwelling in order to establish it as his homestead where he leased it for two years. This is true even though the debtor retained the right to occupy a single car section of the garage and the attic.

In re Marriage of Holtemann Docket Sup.Ct. Docket
162 Cal.App.4th 1175 – 2nd Dist. (B203089) 9/15/08 Petition for review by Cal Supreme Ct. DENIED 12/10/08COMMUNITY PROPERTY: Transmutation of separate property to community property requires language which expressly states that the characterization or ownership of the property is being changed. Here, an effective transmutation occurred because the transmutation agreement clearly specified that a transmutation was occurring and was not negated by arguably confusing language in a trust regarding the parties’ rights to terminate the trust. The court also stated that it was not aware of any authority for the proposition that a transmutation can be conditional or temporary. However, while questioning whether a transmutation can be conditional or temporary, the court did not specifically make that holding because the language used by the parties was not conditional.

Mission Shores Association v. Pheil Docket
166 Cal.App.4th 789 – 4th Dist., Div. 2 (E043932) 9/5/08 Case complete 11/7/08CC&R’s: Civil Code Section 1356 allows a court to reduce a super-majority voting requirement to amend CC&R’s where the court finds that the amendment is reasonable. Here the court reduced the 2/3 majority requirement to a simple majority for an amendment to limit rentals of homes to 30 days or more.

Zanelli v. McGrath Docket
166 Cal.App.4th 615 – 1st Dist. (A117111) 9/2/08 Case complete 11/4/08EASEMENTS:
1. The doctrine of merger codified in Civil Code Sections 805 and 811 applies when “the right to the servitude,” and “the right to the servient tenement” are not vested in a single individual, but in the same persons;

2. The doctrine of merger applies regardless of whether the owners held title as joint tenants or tenants in common. Also, the fact that one owner held his interest in one of the properties as trustee for his inter vivos revocable trust does not preclude merger because California law recognizes that when property is held in this type of trust the settlor has the equivalent of full ownership of the property. (If he had held title only in a representative capacity as a trustee for other beneficiaries under the terms of an irrevocable trust, then his ownership might not result in extinguishment by merger because he would only hold the legal title for the benefit of others.) The court cites Galdjie v. Darwish (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1331, stating that a revocable inter vivos trust is recognized as simply a probate avoidance device, but does not prevent creditors of the settlers from reaching trust property.

(3) After being extinguished by merger, an easement is not revived upon severance of the formerly dominant and servient parcels unless it is validly created once again.

Ritter & Ritter v. The Churchill Condominium Assn. Docket
166 Cal.App.4th 103 – 2nd Dist. (B187840) 7/22/08 (pub. order 8/21/08) Case complete 10/21/08HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATIONS: A member of a condominium homeowners’ association can recover damages from the association which result from a dangerous condition negligently maintained by the association in the common area. However, the court found in favor of the individual directors because a greater degree of fault is necessary to hold unpaid individual board members liable, and such greater degree of fault was not present here.

Kempton v. City of Los Angeles Docket Sup.Ct. Docket
165 Cal.App.4th 1344 – 2nd Dist. (B201128) 8/13/08 Request for Depublication by Cal Supreme Ct. DENIED 11/12/08NUISANCE: A private individual may bring an action against a municipality to abate a public nuisance when the individual suffers harm that is specially injurious to himself, or where the nuisance is a public nuisance per se, such as blocking a public sidewalk or road. The court held that plaintiff’s assertions that neighbors’ fences were erected upon city property, prevent access to plaintiff’s sidewalk area, and block the sightlines upon entering and exiting their garage were sufficient to support both a public nuisance per se and specific injury.

Claudino v. Pereira Docket Sup.Ct. Docket
165 Cal.App.4th 1282 – 3rd Dist. (C054808) 8/12/08 Petition for review by Cal Supreme Ct. DENIED 11/12//08SURVEYS: Determining the location of a boundary line shown on a plat recorded pursuant to the 1867 Townsite Acts requires an examination of both the plat and the surveyor’s field notes. Here, the plat showed the boundary as a straight line, but the court held that the boundary followed the center line of a gulch because the field notes stated that the boundary was “down said gulch”.

Zack’s, Inc. v. City of Sausalito Docket
165 Cal.App.4th 1163 – 1st Dist. (A118244) 8/11/08 Case complete 10/14/08TIDELANDS / PUBLIC STREETS: A statute authorizing the City’s lease of tidelands does not supersede other state laws establishing procedures for the abandonment of public streets. Because the City failed to follow the normal procedure for abandonment of the portion of the street upon which it granted a lease, the leasehold was not authorized and can therefore be deemed a nuisance.

Gehr v. Baker Hughes Oil Field Operations Docket Sup.Ct. Docket
165 Cal.App.4th 660 – 2nd Dist. (B201195) 7/30/08 Petition for review by Cal Supreme Ct. DENIED 10/16/08NUISANCE: Plaintiff purchased from Defendant real property that was contaminated, and Defendant had begun the remediation process. The 3-year statute of limitations for suing under a permanent nuisance theory had expired. So Plaintiff sued for nuisance damages under a continuing nuisance theory, seeking interest rate differential damages based on the difference in the interest rate between an existing loan and a loan that plaintiff could have obtained if not for the contamination.

The court held that plaintiff’s claim for interest rate differential damages is actually a claim for diminution in value, which may not be recovered under a continuing nuisance theory. Damages for diminution in value may only be recovered for permanent, not continuing, nuisances. When suing for a continuing nuisance, future or prospective damages are not allowed, such as damages for diminution in the value of the subject property. A nuisance can only be considered “continuing” if it can be abated, and therefore a plaintiff suing under this theory may only recover the costs of abating the nuisance.

If the nuisance has inflicted a permanent injury on the land, the plaintiff generally must bring a single lawsuit for all past, present, and future damages within three years of the creation of the nuisance. But if the nuisance is one which may be discontinued at any time, it is considered continuing in character and persons harmed by it may bring successive actions for damages until the nuisance is abated. Recovery is limited, however, to actual injury suffered prior to commencement of each action.

Witt Home Ranch v. County of Sonoma Docket Sup.Ct. Docket
165 Cal.App.4th 543 – 1st Dist. (A118911) 7/29/08 Petition for review by Cal Supreme Ct. DENIED 5/28/08SUBDIVISION MAP ACT: This case contains a good history of California’s Subdivision Map Act statutes. The court held that the laws governing subdivision maps in 1915 did not regulate the “design and improvement of subdivisions,” as required by the grandfather clause of Government Code Section 66499.30. The subdivision map in this case was recorded in 1915 and no lots were subsequently conveyed, so the map does not create a valid subdivision.

T.O. IX v. Superior Court Docket Sup.Ct. Docket
165 Cal.App.4th 140 – 2nd Dist. (B203794) 7/24/08 Petition for review by Cal Supreme Ct. DENIED 9/10/08MECHANIC’S LIENS: A mechanic’s lien claimant recorded a mechanic’s lien against each of the nine parcels in a project, each lien for the full amount due under the contract. The court held that defendant could record a single release bond under Civil Code Section 3143 to release all of the liens.

Kassir v. Zahabi Docket
164 Cal.App.4th 1352 – 4th Dist., Div. 3 (G038449) 3/5/08 (Pub. Order 4/3/08, Received 7/16/08) Case complete 5/9/08SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE: The trial court ordered Defendant to specifically perform his contract to sell real property to Plaintiff, and further issued a judgment ordering Defendant to pay Plaintiff for rents accruing during the time Defendant was able to perform the agreement but refused to do so. The court held that because the property was overencumbered, Defendant would have received nothing under the agreement and no offset was required.

The court explained that because execution of the judgment in a specific performance action will occur later than the date of performance provided by the contract, financial adjustments must be made to relate their performance back to the contract date, namely: 1) when a buyer is deprived of possession of the property pending resolution of the dispute and the seller receives rents and profits, the buyer is entitled to a credit against the purchase price for the rents and profits from the time the property should have been conveyed to him, 2) a seller also must be treated as if he had performed in a timely fashion and is entitled to receive the value of his lost use of the purchase money during the period performance was delayed, 3) if any part of the purchase price has been set aside by the buyer with notice to the seller, the seller may not receive credit for his lost use of those funds and 4) any award to the seller representing the value of his lost use of the purchase money cannot exceed the rents and profits awarded to the buyer, for otherwise the breaching seller would profit from his wrong.

Grant v. Ratliff Docket Sup.Ct. Docket
164 Cal.App.4th 1304 – 2nd Dist. (B194368) 7/16/08 Request for depublication by Cal Supreme Ct. DENIED 10/1/08PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENTS: The plaintiff/owner of Parcel A sought to establish a prescriptive easement to a road over Parcel B. In order to establish the requisite 5-year period of open and notorious possession, the plaintiff needed to include the time that the son of the owner of Parcel B spent living in a mobile home on Parcel A. The court held that the son’s use of Parcel A was not adverse but was instead a matter of “family accommodation” and, therefore, a prescriptive easement was not established. The court also discussed: 1) a party seeking to establish a prescriptive easement has the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence and 2) once the owner of the dominant tenement shows that use of an easement has been continuous over a long period of time, the burden shifts to the owner of the servient tenement to show that the use was permissive, but the servient tenement owner’s burden is a burden of producing evidence, and not a burden of proof.

SBAM Partners v. Wang Docket
164 Cal.App.4th 903 – 2nd Dist. (B204191) 7/9/08 Case complete 9/10/08HOMESTEADS: Under C.C.P. Section 704.710, a homestead exemption is not allowed on property acquired by the debtor after the judgment has been recorded unless it was purchased with exempt proceeds from the sale, damage or destruction of a homestead within the six-month safe harbor period.

Christian v. Flora Docket
164 Cal.App.4th 539 – 3rd Dist. (C054523) 6/30/08 Case complete 9/2/08EASEMENTS: Where parcels in a subdivision are resubdivided by a subsequent parcel map, the new parcel map amends the provisions of any previously recorded parcel map made in compliance with the Map Act. Here, although the deeds to plaintiffs referred to the original parcel map, since the intent of the parties was that the easement shown on the amended parcel map would be conveyed, the grantees acquired title to the easement shown on the amended map.

Lange v. Schilling Docket
163 Cal.App.4th 1412 – 3rd Dist. (C055471) 5/28/08; pub. order 6/16/08 Case Complete 8/18/08REAL ESTATE AGENTS: The clear language of the standard California real estate purchase agreement precludes an award of attorney’s fees if a party does not attempt mediation before commencing litigation. Because plaintiff filed his lawsuit before offering mediation, there was no basis to award attorney’s fees.

Talbott v. Hustwit Docket Sup.Ct. Docket
164 Cal.App.4th 148 – 4th Dist., Div. 3 (G037424) 6/20/08 Petition for review and depublication DENIED by Cal Supreme Ct. 9/24/08GUARANTEES:
1. C.C.P. 580a, which requires an appraisal of the real property security before the court may issue a deficiency judgment, does not apply to an action against a guarantor.
2. A lender cannot recover under a guaranty where there the debtor and guarantor already have identical liability, such as with general partners or trustees of a revocable trust in which the debtor is the settlor, trustee and primary beneficiary. Here, however, a guarantee signed by the trustees of the debtors’ trust is enforceable as a “true guarantee” because, although the debtors were the settlors, they were a) secondary, not primary, beneficiaries and b) were not the trustees.

Mayer v. L & B Real Estate Sup.Ct. Docket
43 Cal.4th 1231 – Cal. Supreme Court (S142211) 6/16/08TAX SALES: The one-year statute of limitations for attacking a tax sale does not begin to run against a property owner who is in “undisturbed possession” of the subject property until that owner has actual notice of the tax sale. Ordinarily, a property owner who has failed to pay property taxes has sufficient knowledge to put him on notice that a tax sale might result. However, in this case the property owners did not have notice because they purchased a single piece of commercial property and received a single yearly tax bill. They had no reason to suspect that due to errors committed by the tax assessor, a small portion of their property was being assessed separately and the tax bills were being sent to a previous owner.

NOTE: This creates a hazard for title companies insuring after a tax sale in reliance on the one-year statute of limitations in Revenue and Taxation Code Section 3725.

California Golf v. Cooper Docket Sup.Ct. Docket
163 Cal.App.4th 1053 – 2nd Dist. (B195211) 6/9/08 Petition for review by Cal Supreme Ct. DENIED 9/17/08TRUSTEE’S SALES:
1. A bidder at a trustee’s sale may not challenge the sale on the basis that the lender previously obtained a decree of judicial foreclosure because the doctrine of election of remedies benefits only the trustor or debtor.
2. A lender’s remedies against a bidder who causes a bank to stop payment on cashier’s checks based on a false affidavit asserting that the checks were lost is not limited to the remedies set forth in CC Section 2924h, and may pursue a cause of action for fraud against the bidder.
(The case contains a good discussion (at pp. 25 – 26) of the procedure for stopping payment on a cashier’s check by submitting an affidavit to the issuing bank.)

Biagini v. Beckham Docket
163 Cal.App.4th 1000 – 3rd Dist. (C054915) 6/9/08 Case complete 8/11/08DEDICATION:
1. Acceptance of a dedication may be actual or implied. It is actual when formal acceptance is made by the proper authorities, and implied when a use has been made of the property by the public 1) of an intensity that is reasonable for the nature of the road and 2) for such a length of time as will evidence an intention to accept the dedication. BUT the use in this case was not sufficient because the use was by neighbors whose use did not exceed what was permitted pursuant to a private easement over the same area.
2. A statutory offer of dedication can be revoked as to the public at large by use of the area that is inconsistent with the dedication, but the offer remains open for formal acceptance by the public entity to which the offer was made.

Steiner v. Thexton Docket Sup.Ct. Docket
Cal.App. 3rd Dist. (C054605) 5/28/08 REVERSED by Cal. Supreme Ct.OPTIONS: A contract to sell real property where the buyer’s performance was entirely conditioned on the buyer obtaining regulatory approval to subdivide the property is an option. An option must be supported by consideration, but was not here, where the buyer could back out at any time. Buyer’s promise to deliver to seller copies “of all information, reports, tests, studies and other documentation” was not sufficient consideration to support the option.

In re Marriage Cases Docket
43 Cal.4th 757 – Cal. Supreme Court (S147999) 5/15/08MARRIAGE: The language of Family Code Section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union “between a man and a woman” is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples.

Harvey v. The Landing Homeowners Association Docket
162 Cal.App.4th 809 – 4th Dist., Div. 1 (D050263) 4/4/08 (Cert. for Pub. 4/30/08) Case complete 6/30/08HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS: The Board of Directors of an HOA has the authority to allow owners to exclusively use common area accessible only to those owners where the following provision of the CC&R’s applied: “The Board shall have the right to allow an Owner to exclusively use portions of the otherwise nonexclusive Common Area, provided that such portions . . . are nominal in area and adjacent to the Owner’s Exclusive Use Area(s) or Living Unit, and, provided further, that such use does not unreasonably interfere with any other Owner’s use . . .” Also, this is allowed under Civil Code Section 1363.07(a)(3)(E).

Salma v. Capon Docket
161 Cal.App.4th 1275 – 1st Dist. (A115057) 4/9/08 Case complete 6/11/08HOME EQUITY SALES: A seller claimed he sold his house for far less than it was worth “due to the duress of an impending trustee’s sale and the deceit of the purchasers”. The case involves procedural issues that are not relevant to this web site. However, it is included here because it demonstrates the kind of mess that can occur when you are dealing with property that is in foreclosure. Be careful, folks.

Aviel v. Ng Docket
161 Cal.App.4th 809 – 1st Dist. (A114930) 2/28/08; pub. order 4/1/08 Case complete 5/6/08LEASES / SUBORDINATION: A lease provision subordinating the lease to “mortgages” also applied to deeds of trust because the two instruments are functionally and legally the same. Therefore a foreclosure of a deed of trust wiped out the lease.

People v. Martinez Docket
161 Cal.App.4th 754 – 4th Dist., Div. 2 (E042427) 4/1/08 Case complete 6/2/08FORGERY: This criminal case involves a conviction for forgery of a deed of trust. [NOTE: The crime of forgery can occur even if the owner actually signed the deed of trust. The court pointed out that “forgery is committed when a defendant, by fraud or trickery, causes another to execute a document where the signer is unaware, by reason of such trickery, that he is executing a document of that nature.”

Pacific Hills Homeowners Association v. Prun Docket
160 Cal.App.4th 1557 – 4th Dist., Div. 3 (G038244) 3/20/08 Case complete 5/27/08CC&R’s: Defendants built a gate and fence within the setback required by the CC&R’s. 1) The court held that the 5-year statute of limitations of C.C.P. 336(b) applies to unrecorded as well as recorded restrictions, so that the shorter 4-year statute of limitations of C.C.P. 337 is inapplicable. 2) The court upheld the trial court’s equitable remedy of requiring the HOA to pay 2/3 of the cost of relocation defendant’s gate based upon the HOA’s sloppiness in not pursuing its case more promptly.

Nicoll v. Rudnick Docket
160 Cal.App.4th 550 – 5th Dist. (F052948) 2/27/08 Case complete 4/28/08WATER RIGHTS: An appropriative water right established in a 1902 judgment applied to the entire 300 acre parcel so that when part of the parcel was foreclosed and subsequently re-sold, the water rights must be apportioned according to the acreage of each parcel, not according to the prior actual water usage attributable to each parcel. NOTE: This case contains a good explanation of California water rights law.

Real Estate Analytics v. Vallas Docket
160 Cal.App.4th 463 – 4th Dist., Div. 1 (D049161) 2/26/08 Case complete 5/29/08SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE: Specific performance is appropriate even where the buyer’s sole purpose and entire intent in buying the property was to earn money for its investors and turn a profit as quickly as possible. The fact that plaintiff was motivated solely to make a profit from the purchase of the property does not overcome the strong statutory presumption that all land is unique and therefore damages were inadequate to make plaintiff whole for the defendant’s breach.

Fourth La Costa Condominium Owners Assn. v. Seith Docket
159 Cal.App.4th 563 – 4th Dist., Div. 1 (D049276) 1/30/08 Case complete 4/1/08CC&R’s/HOMEOWNER’S ASSOCIATIONS: The court applied CC 1356(c)(2) and Corp. Code 7515, which allow a court to reduce the supermajority vote requirement for amending CC&R’s and bylaw because the amendments were reasonable and the balloting requirements of the statutes were met.

02 Development, LLC v. 607 South Park, LLC Docket
159 Cal.App.4th 609 – 2nd Dist. (B200226) 1/30/08 Case complete 4/3/08SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE: 1) An assignment of a purchaser’s rights under a purchase agreement prior to creation of the assignee as an LLC is valid because an organization can enforce pre-organization contracts if the organization adopts or ratifies them. 2) A purchaser does not need to prove that it already had the necessary funds, or already had binding commitments from third parties to provide the funds, when the other party anticipatorily repudiates the contract. All that plaintiff needed to prove was that it would have been able to obtain the necessary funding (or funding commitments) in order to close the transaction on time.

Richeson v. Helal Docket Sup.Ct. Docket
158 Cal.App.4th 268 – 2nd Dist. (B187273) 11/29/07; Pub. & mod. order 12/21/07 (see end of opinion) Petition for review by Cal Supreme Ct. DENIED 2/20/08CC&R’s / MUNICIPALITIES: An Agreement Imposing Restrictions (“AIR”) and CC&R’s did not properly lend themselves to an interpretation that would prohibit the City from changing the permitted use or zoning and, were they so construed, the AIR and CC&R’s would be invalid as an attempt by the City to surrender its future right to exercise its police power respecting the property. Here, the AIR and CC&R’s did not prohibit the City from issuing a new conditional use permit allowing the continued use of the subject property as a neighborhood market.

Bill Signs Trucking v. Signs Family Ltd. Partnership Docket Sup.Ct. Docket
157 Cal.App.4th 1515 – 4th Dist., Div. 1 (D047861) 12/18/07 Petition for review by Cal Supreme Ct. DENIED 4/9/08LEASES / RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL: A tenant’s right of first refusal under a commercial lease is not triggered by the conveyance of an interest in the property between co-partners in a family limited partnership that owns the property and is the landlord.

Schweitzer v. Westminster Investments Docket Sup.Ct. Docket
157 Cal.App.4th 1195 – 4th Dist., Div. 1 (D049589) 12/13/07 Petition for review by Cal Supreme Ct. DENIED 3/26/08EQUITY PURCHASERS:
1) The bonding requirement of the Home Equity Sales Contracts Act (Civil Code Section 1695.17) is void for vagueness under the due process clause and may not be enforced. Section 1695.17 is vague because it provides no guidance on the amount, the obligee, the beneficiaries, the terms or conditions of the bond, the delivery and acceptance requirements, or the enforcement mechanisms of the required bond.
2) Although the bond requirement may not be enforced, the remainder of the statutory scheme remains valid because the bond provisions are severable from the balance of the enactment.
3) The court refused to set aside the deed in favor of the equity purchaser because, first, the notice requirements of Civil Code Section 1695.5 appear to have been met and, second, the seller’s right to rescind applies before the deed is recorded but the statute “does not specify that a violation of section 1695.5 provides grounds for rescinding a transaction after recordation of the deed”.

Crestmar Owners Association v. Stapakis Docket
157 Cal.App.4th 1223 – 2nd Dist. (B191049) 12/13/07 Case complete 2/15/07CC&R’s: Where a developer failed to convey title to two parking spaces as required by the CC&R’s, the homeowner’s association was able to quiet title even though more than 20 years had passed since the parking spaces should have been conveyed. The statute of limitations does not run against someone, such as the homeowner’s association here, who is in exclusive and undisputed possession of the property.

Washington Mutual Bank v. Blechman Docket Sup.Ct. Docket
157 Cal.App.4th 662 – 2nd Dist. (B191125) 12/4/07 Petition for review by Cal Supreme Ct. DENIED 3/19/08TRUSTEE’S SALES: The foreclosing lender and trustee are indispensable parties to a lawsuit which seeks to set aside a trustee’s sale. Therefore, a default judgment against only the purchaser at the trustee’s sale is subject to collateral attack.

Garretson v. Post Docket Sup.Ct. Docket
156 Cal.App.4th 1508 – 4th Dist., Div.2 (E041858) 11/20/07 Petition for review by Cal Supreme Ct. DENIED 2/27/08TRUSTEE’S SALES: A cause of action for wrongful foreclosure does not fall within the protection of Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, commonly referred to as the anti-SLAPP statute (strategic lawsuit against public participation).

Murphy v. Burch Docket Sup.Ct. Docket
Cal.App. 1st Dist. (A117051) 11/19/07
AFFIRMED by Cal Supreme Ct. 4/27/09EASEMENT BY NECESSITY: An easement by necessity arises by operation of law when 1) there is a strict necessity as when a property is landlocked and 2) the dominant and servient tenements were under the same ownership at the time of the conveyance giving rise to the necessity. However, the second requirement is not met when the properties were owned by the federal government because the Government has the power of eminent domain, rendering it unnecessary to resort to the easement by necessity doctrine in order to acquire easements.

The court attempts to distinguish Kellogg v. Garcia, 102 Cal.App.4th 796, by pointing out that in that case the issue of eminent domain did not arise because the dominant tenement was owned by a private party and the servient tenements by the federal government. [Ed. Note: the court does not adequately address the fact that the government does not always have the power of eminent domain. It only has that power if a public purpose is involved. Also, I do not think the court adequately distinguishes Kellogg, which seems to hold that common ownership by the federal government satisfies the requirement of common ownership.]

Elias Real Estate v. Tseng Docket Sup.Ct. Docket
156 Cal.App.4th 425 – 2nd Dist. (B192857) 10/25/07 Petition for review by Cal Supreme Ct. DENIED 2/13/08SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE: Acts of a partner falling within Corp. Code 16301(1) (acts in ordinary course of business) are not subject to the statute of frauds. Acts of a partner falling within Corp. Code 16301(2) (acts not in the ordinary course of business) are subject to the statute of frauds. In this case, a sale of the partnership’s real property was not in the ordinary course of business, so it fell within Corp. Code 16301(2) and plaintiff could not enforce a contract of sale signed by only one partner.

Strong v. State Board of Equalization Docket Sup.Ct. Docket
155 Cal.App.4th 1182 – 3rd Dist. (C052818) 10/2/07 Petition for review by Cal Supreme Ct. DENIED 1/3/08CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP: The statute that excludes transfers between domestic partners from property tax reassessment is constitutional.

insider mers memo foreclosure procedures all states

State-by-State
MERS Recommended
Foreclosure Procedures
Updated 2002
Corporate Offices
1818 Library Street, Suite 300
Reston, VA 20190
tel (800) 646-6377
fax (703) 748-0183
http://www.mersinc.org
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION__________________________________________________________3
RECOMMENDED FORECLOSURE PROCEDURES:
Alabama___________________________________________________________________________8
Alaska____________________________________________________________________________10
Arizona___________________________________________________________________________12
Arkansas__________________________________________________________________________14
California__________________________________________________________________________16
Colorado__________________________________________________________________________18
Connecticut________________________________________________________________________20
Delaware__________________________________________________________________________22
District of Columbia_________________________________________________________________24
Florida____________________________________________________________________________26
Georgia___________________________________________________________________________28
Hawaii____________________________________________________________________________30
Idaho_____________________________________________________________________________32
Illinois____________________________________________________________________________34
Indiana____________________________________________________________________________36
Iowa______________________________________________________________________________38
Kansas____________________________________________________________________________40
Kentucky__________________________________________________________________________42
Louisiana__________________________________________________________________________44
Maine_____________________________________________________________________________46
Maryland__________________________________________________________________________48
Massachusetts______________________________________________________________________50
Michigan__________________________________________________________________________52
Minnesota_________________________________________________________________________54
Mississippi_________________________________________________________________________56
Missouri___________________________________________________________________________58
Montana___________________________________________________________________________60
Nebraska__________________________________________________________________________62
Nevada___________________________________________________________________________64
New Hampshire_____________________________________________________________________66
New Jersey________________________________________________________________________68
New Mexico_______________________________________________________________________70
New York_________________________________________________________________________72
North Carolina______________________________________________________________________74
North Dakota_______________________________________________________________________76
Ohio______________________________________________________________________________78
Oklahoma_________________________________________________________________________80
Oregon____________________________________________________________________________83
Pennsylvania_______________________________________________________________________85
Rhode Island_______________________________________________________________________87
South Carolina______________________________________________________________________89
South Dakota_______________________________________________________________________91
Tennessee_________________________________________________________________________93
Texas_____________________________________________________________________________95
Utah______________________________________________________________________________97
Vermont___________________________________________________________________________99
Virginia__________________________________________________________________________102
Washington_______________________________________________________________________104
West Virginia_____________________________________________________________________106
Wisconsin________________________________________________________________________108
Wyoming_________________________________________________________________________110
Introduction
MERS has put together this Foreclosure Manual to provide a state by state guideline for our Members to follow when foreclosing a mortgage loan in the name of MERS. Each state’s procedure was developed jointly with local counsel in that respective state. There may be future versions of this Manual if needed. If you have any questions about this Foreclosure Manual, please contact MERS.
Sharon McGann Horstkamp
Corporate Counsel
3
What is MERS?
MERS serves two purposes. First, it is a national electronic registry for tracking servicing rights and beneficial ownership interests in mortgage loans. Second, MERS acts as nominee (a form of agent) for the servicer and beneficial owner of a mortgage loan in the public land records. MERS is designed to operate within the existing legal framework in all U.S. jurisdictions and did not require any changes to existing laws.
How is this made possible? Its members appoint MERS as the mortgagee of record on all loans that they register on the MERS System. This appointment eliminates the need for any future assignments when servicing rights are sold from one MERS Member to another. Instead of preparing a paper assignment to track the change in the county land records, all subsequent transfers are tracked electronically on the MERS System.
MERS does not create or transfer beneficial interests in mortgage loans or create electronic assignments of the mortgage. What MERS does do is eliminate the need for subsequent recorded assignments altogether. The transfer process of the beneficial ownership of mortgage loans does not change with the arrival of MERS. Promissory notes still require an endorsement and delivery from the current owner to the next owner in order to change the beneficial ownership of a mortgage loan.
MERS is a Delaware corporation with a broad base of ownership from the mortgage industry. American Land Title Association is among our owners and has a seat on the MERS Board of Directors. Other owners with substantial investments in MERS include the Mortgage Bankers Association of America (MBA), Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. These parties, along with Ginnie Mae, decided several years ago that MERS would be a major benefit to the mortgage industry and worked together to create the MERS of today.
How does MERS become the Mortgagee of Record?
MERS is put in this position in one of two ways: the first is by an assignment from a lender or servicer to MERS. This method is usually associated with bulk transfers of servicing. The second way is with the lender naming MERS as the mortgagee of record as nominee for itself (and its successors and assigns) in the original security instrument at the time the loan is closed. We call this second option “MOM”, which stands for MERS as Original Mortgagee.
4
“MOM” was a significant milestone for MERS and the mortgage industry. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae have each approved the use of MERS as original mortgagee as nominee for a lender on the security instrument for loans sold to them and registered on the MERS System.
In order to make MOM work, changes were made by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to their uniform security instruments allowing MERS to be named as the mortgagee in a nominee capacity for the lender. First, to reflect the interrelationship of the promissory note and mortgage and to ensure these two instruments are tied together properly, the recital paragraph names MERS, solely as nominee for Lender, as beneficiary. Second, it is made clear that the originating lender rather than MERS is defined as the “Lender”. This change was made so that everyone understands that MERS is not involved in the loan administration process. Third, as mortgagee of record, MERS needs to have the authority to release the lien of security instrument, or if necessary, foreclose on the collateral on behalf of the lender. Such authority is provided by adding a paragraph to the security instrument informing the borrower that MERS holds only legal title to the interests granted by the borrower. It also informs the borrower that, if necessary to comply with law or custom, MERS may exercise the right to foreclose and sell the property and may take any action required of the Lender to release or cancel the security instrument.
Once MERS is named in the original security instrument or by way of an assignment, the document is then recorded in the appropriate public land records. From this point on, no subsequent assignments of the mortgage to a MERS member needs to be recorded. MERS remains in the land records, as mortgagee, throughout the life of the loan so long as servicing is not sold to a non-MERS member. All subsequent transfers of ownership in mortgage loans and servicing rights for that loan are tracked electronically between MERS members through the MERS System. This process eliminates the opportunity for a break in the chain of title.
Moreover, unless a MERS member transfers servicing rights to a loan registered on the MERS System to a non-MERS member, the loan stays on the system until it is paid off. The process to transfer servicing rights between MERS members requires an electronic confirmation from the buyer. It begins with the seller entering loan transfer information into the system, including the Mortgage Identification Number (explained below), the new servicer organizational identification number, the sale date, and the transfer effective date. The buyer then must submit a confirmation acknowledgment to the system. The old servicer and the new servicer are still required to notify the homeowner in writing when loan servicing is traded as required under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. A loan is de-registered from the system only if its servicing rights to a loan are transferred to a non-MERS member.
With every new loan that is registered on the MERS System, it becomes more likely that you will come in contact with a mortgage loan having MERS as the mortgage holder in the chain of title. MERS is put in this position in one of two ways: the first is by an assignment from a lender or servicer to MERS. This method is usually associated with bulk transfers of servicing. The second way is with the lender naming MERS as the mortgagee of record as
5
nominee for itself (and its successors and assigns) in the original security instrument at the time the loan is closed. We call this second option “MOM”, which stands for MERS as Original Mortgagee.
“MOM” was a significant milestone for MERS and the mortgage industry. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae have each approved the use of MERS as original mortgagee as nominee for a lender on the security instrument for loans sold to them and registered on the MERS System.
In order to make MOM work, changes were made by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to their uniform security instruments allowing MERS to be named as the mortgagee in a nominee capacity for the lender. First, to reflect the interrelationship of the promissory note and mortgage and to ensure these two instruments are tied together properly, the recital paragraph names MERS, solely as nominee for Lender, as beneficiary. Second, it is made clear that the originating lender rather than MERS is defined as the “Lender”. This change was made so that everyone understands that MERS is not involved in the loan administration process. Third, as mortgagee of record, MERS needs to have the authority to release the lien of security instrument, or if necessary, foreclose on the collateral on behalf of the lender. Such authority is provided by adding a paragraph to the security instrument informing the borrower that MERS holds only legal title to the interests granted by the borrower. It also informs the borrower that, if necessary to comply with law or custom, MERS may exercise the right to foreclose and sell the property and may take any action required of the Lender to release or cancel the security instrument.
Once MERS is named in the original security instrument or by way of an assignment, the document is then recorded in the appropriate public land records. From this point on, no subsequent assignments of the mortgage to a MERS member needs to be recorded. MERS remains in the land records, as mortgagee, throughout the life of the loan so long as servicing is not sold to a non-MERS member. All subsequent transfers of ownership in mortgage loans and servicing rights for that loan are tracked electronically between MERS members through the MERS System. This process eliminates the opportunity for a break in the chain of title.
Moreover, unless a MERS member transfers servicing rights to a loan registered on the MERS System to a non-MERS member, the loan stays on the system until it is paid off. The process to transfer servicing rights between MERS members requires an electronic confirmation from the buyer. It begins with the seller entering loan transfer information into the system, including the Mortgage Identification Number (explained below), the new servicer organizational identification number, the sale date, and the transfer effective date. The buyer then must submit a confirmation acknowledgment to the system. The old servicer and the new servicer are still required to notify the homeowner in writing when loan servicing is traded as required under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. A loan is de-registered from the system only if its servicing rights to a loan are transferred to a non-MERS member.
6
Why Foreclose in the Name of MERS
The mortgage establishes the remedy to foreclose and sell the property if the borrower does not pay back the amount loaned to the borrower according to schedule. Typically, the loan servicer, as the mortgagee of record, is the party that initiates the foreclosure proceedings on behalf of the investor. When MERS is the mortgagee of record, the foreclosure can be commenced in the name of MERS in place of the loan servicer. For another entity to foreclose, an assignment is required from MERS to the other entity.
Establishing MERS as mortgagee of record will not cause any significant changes to current foreclosure practices in any state when the beneficial owner wants to proceed with foreclosures in the name of MERS. Just take a look at the recommended procedures.
7
MERS RECOMMENDED FORECLOSURE PROCEDURE
FOR ALABAMA
Foreclosing a loan in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is something new in the foreclosure arena. However, when the role of MERS is examined, it becomes clear that MERS stands in the same position to foreclose as the servicer. MERS, like the servicer, will be the record mortgage holder. It is through the mortgage or deed of trust that MERS is given the authority to foreclose.
To help make a smooth transition from foreclosing loans in the name of the servicer to foreclosing loans in the name of MERS, we have developed state by state recommended guidelines to follow. These guidelines were developed in conjunction with experienced foreclosure counsel in your state. We have been able to keep the MERS recommended procedures consistent with the existing foreclosure procedures. The goal of the recommended procedures is to avoid adding any extra steps or incurring any additional taxes or costs by foreclosing in the name of MERS instead of the servicer.
MERS will continually review the guidelines and, if necessary, will issue revisions. The recommended guidelines to follow in your state are as follows:
Mortgages are foreclosed non-judicially under power of sale. Local counsel advises that a foreclosure can be brought in the name of MERS. Notice of the foreclosure sale is published with Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) named as the foreclosing entity instead of the servicer.
Employees of the servicer will be certifying officers of MERS. This means they are authorized to sign any necessary documents as an officer of MERS. The certifying officer is granted this power by a corporate resolution of MERS. In other words, the same individual that signs the documents for the servicer will continue to sign the documents, but now as an officer of MERS.
The agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae) require the promissory note be endorsed in blank when the seller/servicer sells a mortgage loan to them. Therefore, the note should remain endorsed in blank when the foreclosure is commenced in the name of MERS. However, we have been advised that sometimes there is an endorsement of the promissory note to the servicer prior to foreclosure. We recommend that the agencies’ policies be followed.
At the foreclosure sale, the certifying officer will instruct the foreclosing attorney regarding the bid to be entered on behalf of MERS. If the bid is the highest bid, then the auctioneer will be instructed to deed the property directly to the investor. We have been advised that this is the same procedure followed when foreclosing in the name of the servicer. Because the MERS recommended procedure follows the same procedure that is used when the servicer forecloses in its name, no additional taxes are incurred by foreclosing in the name of MERS.
Version 1.1
November 1999
8
Evictions are handled the same way they are handled when the servicer commences the foreclosure as the foreclosing entity. If it is an FHA-insured loan and an eviction is necessary, then the auctioneer deed can be issued to the servicer. This way, the eviction can be brought in the name of the servicer. Once the eviction is completed, then the servicer can issue a deed to HUD. Again, you should follow the same procedures you follow when foreclosing in the name of the servicer.
If the debtor declares bankruptcy, the proof of claim should be filed jointly in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and the servicer. It is advised to file in both names in order to disclose to the court the relationship of MERS and the servicer. The address to be used is the servicer’s address so that all trustee payments go directly to the servicer, not to MERS. The Motion for Relief from Stay may be filed either solely in the name of MERS or jointly with the servicer. If MERS is the foreclosing entity, then it is MERS that needs the relief from the bankruptcy.
Version 1.1
November 1999
9
MERS RECOMMENDED FORECLOSURE PROCEDURE
FOR ALASKA
Foreclosing a loan in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is something new in the foreclosure arena. However, when the role of MERS is examined, it becomes clear that MERS stands in the same position to foreclose as the servicer. MERS, like the servicer, will be the record mortgage holder. It is through the mortgage or deed of trust that MERS is given the authority to foreclose.
To help make a smooth transition from foreclosing loans in the name of the servicer to foreclosing loans in the name of MERS, we have developed state by state recommended guidelines to follow. These guidelines were developed in conjunction with experienced foreclosure counsel in your state. We have been able to keep the MERS recommended procedures consistent with the existing foreclosure procedures. The goal of the recommended procedures is to avoid adding any extra steps or incurring any additional taxes or costs by foreclosing in the name of MERS instead of the servicer.
MERS will continually review the guidelines and, if necessary, will issue revisions. The recommended guidelines to follow in your state are as follows:
Deeds of Trust are typically used and are foreclosed non-judicially by the power of sale contained therein. MERS local counsel advises that a foreclosure can be done in the name of MERS. Local counsel confirmed with First American Title Insurance Company that with a few minor caveats, foreclosing in the name of MERS should not present any problems.
Employees of the servicer will be certifying officers of MERS. This means they are authorized to sign any necessary documents, such as the substitution of trustee, as an officer of MERS. The certifying officer is granted this power by a corporate resolution of MERS. In other words, the same individual that signs the documents for the servicer will continue to sign the documents, but now as an officer of MERS.
The agencies’ policy is that the promissory note is endorsed in blank when the seller/servicer sells the loan to them. Therefore, the note should remain endorsed in blank when the foreclosure is commenced in the name of MERS. We have been advised that sometimes the Note is endorsed to the servicer prior to the foreclosure, but unless it is legally required, the Note should remain endorsed in blank. MERS stands in the same shoes as the servicer to the extent that it is not the beneficial owner of the promissory note. An investor, typically a secondary market investor, will still be the ultimate owner of the promissory note.
The trustee, who is typically a title company, commences the foreclosure by executing and recording the Notice of Default. The Notice of Default is filed and published the same way with the same required information except that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) will be named as the foreclosing
Version 1.1
November 1999
10
entity. At the foreclosure sale, an “offset bid” is entered on behalf of MERS who is acting in the capacity as “agent” for the servicer. Local counsel advises that the Beneficiary’s Declaration of Default can be modified to describe the relationship of MERS and the Servicer. This should enable the servicer, instead of MERS, to be the named grantee of the Trustee’s Deed. The servicer can then issue a deed to the investor. This procedure is consistent with the current two-deed foreclosure practice.
While initially there may be some hesitation to accept an “offset bid” by the servicer, MERS local counsel states that usually a title company is willing to recognize the substance of who actually owns the loan rather than the form of the record ownership.1 In that instance, if the servicer is successful at the foreclosure sale, the trustee’s deed will be issued directly to the servicer.
Evictions are handled the same way they are handled when the servicer commences the foreclosure as the foreclosing entity. If it is an FHA-insured loan and an eviction is necessary, then the servicer, by being the grantee of the trustee’s deed, is able to commence the eviction. This way, the servicer will proceed with the eviction the same way it would if the foreclosure were filed in its own name.
If the debtor declares bankruptcy, the proof of claim should be filed jointly in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and the servicer. It is advised to file in both names in order to disclose to the court the relationship of MERS and the servicer. The address to be used is the servicer’s address so that all trustee payments go directly to the servicer, not to MERS. The Motion for Relief from Stay may be filed either solely in the name of MERS or jointly with the servicer. If MERS is the foreclosing entity, then it is MERS that needs the relief from the bankruptcy.
1 If the “offset bid” is not accepted, then the trustee’s deed may need to be granted to MERS. If MERS takes title to the property, a subsequent deed should be executed to the investor as soon as possible.
Version 1.1
November 1999
11
MERS RECOMMENDED FORECLOSURE PROCEDURE
FOR ARIZONA
Foreclosing a loan in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is something new in the foreclosure arena. However, when the role of MERS is examined, it becomes clear that MERS stands in the same position to foreclose as the servicer. MERS, like the servicer, will be the record mortgage holder. It is the deed of trust that gives the authority to foreclose.
To help make a smooth transition from foreclosing loans in the name of the servicer to foreclosing loans in the name of MERS, we have developed state by state recommended guidelines to follow. These guidelines were developed in conjunction with experienced foreclosure counsel in your state. We have been able to keep the MERS recommended procedures consistent with the existing foreclosure procedures. The goal of the recommended procedures is to avoid adding any extra steps or incurring any additional taxes or costs by foreclosing in the name of MERS instead of the servicer.
MERS will continually review the guidelines and, if necessary, will issue revisions. The recommended guidelines to follow in your state are as follows:
Deeds of Trust are used and are generally foreclosed non-judicially under a power of sale in the security instrument. Local counsel advises that a foreclosure can be brought in the name of MERS. The Notice of Trustee’s Sale is filed and published the same way it is when foreclosing in the name of the servicer except that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) will be named as the foreclosing entity. It is important to note that the same procedures and state requirements that are required when foreclosing in the servicer’s name still must be followed when foreclosing in the name of MERS.
Employees of the servicer will be certifying officers of MERS. This means they are authorized to sign any necessary documents, such as the Substitution of Trustee, as an officer of MERS. The certifying officer is granted this power by a corporate resolution of MERS. In other words, the same individual that signs the documents for the servicer will continue to sign the documents, but now as an officer of MERS. The substituted trustee is typically the foreclosing attorney.
The agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mae and Ginnie Mae) require a blank endorsement of the promissory note when the seller/servicer sells the loan to them. The note is to remain endorsed in the blank when a servicer commences foreclosure. Therefore, the note should remain endorsed in blank when the foreclosure is commenced in the name of MERS.
At the trustee sale, the certifying officer will instruct the trustee regarding the bid to be entered on behalf of MERS for the investor. This is the same process that is used today when foreclosing in the servicer’s name. We have been advised that the
Version 1.1
November 1999
12
current foreclosure procedure is a one-deed process with the investor directly taking title from the Trustee’s Deed. Therefore, the MERS recommended procedure is the same as when foreclosing in the name of the servicer. The bid is made on behalf of the investor so that the Trustee’s deed will be issued directly to the investor. Because the MERS recommended procedure follows the same procedure that is used when the servicer forecloses in its name, no additional recording or taxes are incurred by foreclosing in the name of MERS.
Evictions are handled the same way they are handled when the servicer commences the foreclosure as the foreclosing entity. If it is an FHA-insured loan, then the trustee’s deed is not recorded to the investor until after the eviction is completed. The eviction is conducted the same way it would be conducted if the servicer foreclosures.
If the debtor declares bankruptcy, the proof of claim should be filed jointly in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and the servicer. It is advised to file in both names in order to disclose to the court the relationship of MERS and the servicer. The address to be used is the servicer’s address so that all trustee payments go directly to the servicer, not to MERS. The Motion for Relief from Stay may be filed either solely in the name of MERS or jointly with the servicer. If MERS is the foreclosing entity, then it is MERS that needs the relief from the bankruptcy.
Version 1.1
November 1999
13
MERS RECOMMENDED FORECLOSURE PROCEDURE
FOR ARKANSAS
Foreclosing a loan in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is something new in the foreclosure arena. However, when the role of MERS is examined, it becomes clear that MERS stands in the same position to foreclose as the servicer. MERS, like a servicer , will be the record mortgage holder. It is the mortgage or deed of trust that gives MERS the authority to foreclose.
To help make a smooth transition from foreclosing loans in the name of the servicer to foreclosing loans in the name of MERS, we have developed state by state recommended guidelines to follow. These guidelines were developed in conjunction with experienced foreclosure counsel in your state. We have been able to keep the MERS recommended procedures consistent with the existing foreclosure procedures. The goal of the recommended procedures is to avoid adding any extra steps or incurring any additional taxes or costs by foreclosing in the name of MERS instead of the servicer.
MERS will continually review the guidelines and, if necessary, will issue revisions. The recommended guidelines to follow in your state are as follows:
Deeds of Trust are used and are generally foreclosed non-judicially under a power of sale in the security instrument. Local counsel advises that a foreclosure can be brought in the name of MERS. The Notice of Default is filed and published the same way it is when foreclosing in the name of the servicer except that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) will be named as the foreclosing entity.
Employees of the servicer will be certifying officers of MERS. This means they are authorized to sign any necessary documents, such as the Substitution of Trustee, as an officer of MERS. The certifying officer is granted this power by a corporate resolution of MERS. In other words, the same individual that signs the documents for the servicer will continue to sign the documents, but now as an officer of MERS. The substituted trustee is typically the foreclosing attorney.
The agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae) require a blank endorsement of the promissory note when the seller/servicer sells a mortgage loan to them. Therefore, the note should remain endorsed in blank when the foreclosure is commenced in the name of MERS.
At the trustee sale, the certifying officer will instruct the trustee regarding the bid to be entered on behalf of MERS. The Trustee’s deed will be issued directly to the assignee of the bid. We have been advised that the current foreclosure procedure is a two-deed process with the servicer taking title and then executing a subsequent deed to the investor. Therefore, the MERS recommended procedure is the same as the current practice of assigning the bid to the servicer. Because the MERS recommended procedure follows the same procedure that is used when the servicer
Version 1.1
November 1999
14
forecloses in its name, no additional taxes are incurred by foreclosing in the name of MERS.
Evictions are handled the same way they are handled when the servicer commences the foreclosure as the foreclosing entity. If it is an FHA-insured loan and an eviction is necessary, then the servicer, by being the grantee of the trustee’s deed, can commence the eviction. This way, the servicer will proceed with the eviction the same way it would if the foreclosure were filed in its own name.
If the debtor declares bankruptcy, the proof of claim should be filed jointly in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and the servicer. It is advised to file in both names in order to disclose to the court the relationship of MERS and the servicer. The address to be used is the servicer’s address so that all trustee payments go directly to the servicer. The Motion for Relief from Stay may be filed either solely in the name of MERS or jointly with the servicer. If MERS is the foreclosing entity, then it is MERS that needs the relief from the bankruptcy.
Version 1.1
November 1999
15
MERS RECOMMENDED FORECLOSURE PROCEDURE
FOR CALIFORNIA
A deed of trust in which the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) is named as beneficiary requires special non-judicial foreclosure procedures. MERS was created to avoid the cost and delays caused by assignments of mortgages and deeds of trust. To avoid the need to prepare and record an assignment with the County Recorder’s office, MERS holds title as nominee for the true mortgagee/beneficiary of the mortgage/deed of trust and as transfers occur, they are recorded on the MERS computer in a book entry systems similar to the transfer of stocks.
The MERS procedure for tracking the ownership of mortgages has a direct effect on the foreclosure process. On MERS loans, MERS is shown as the record beneficiary and therefore a MERS foreclosure is brought in the name of MERS. However, at the time of sale the true beneficiary is determined by MERS and the Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale is recorded in the name of that true beneficiary. There are no assignments, additional taxes or costs when foreclosing under the MERS’ foreclosure procedures.
To achieve this result, the following non-judicial foreclosure guidelines are recommended:
On MERS loans, MERS will show as the beneficiary of record. Foreclosures should be commenced in the name of MERS. To effectuate this process, MERS has allowed each servicer to choose a select number of its own employees to act as officers for MERS. Through this process, appropriate documents may be executed at the servicer’s site on behalf of MERS by the same servicing employee that signs foreclosure documents for non-MERS loans.
Until the time of sale, the foreclosure is handled in same manner as non-MERS foreclosures. At the time of sale, if the property reverts, the Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale will follow a different procedure. Since MERS acts as nominee for the true beneficiary, it is important that the Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale be made in the name of the true beneficiary and not MERS. Your title company or MERS officer can easily determine the true beneficiary. Title companies have indicated that they will insure subsequent title when these procedures are followed.
Normally, where the name of the grantee under the Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale is different than the name of the foreclosing entity, the Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale states that the “Grantee was not the foreclosing beneficiary.” This designation triggers the imposition of transfer taxes on the sale. It is important to note that in a MERS foreclosure sale, even where the property reverts, the name of the grantee will be different than the name of the entity foreclosing. Nonetheless, the Trustee’s
Version 1.1
November 1999
16
Deed Upon Sale should state that “The Grantee was the foreclosing beneficiary.” This is because MERS merely holds title as nominee for the true beneficiary; it is the true beneficiary that has actually foreclosed and acquired title.
Finally, should a bankruptcy be filed, servicers should use the same procedures they use for other investor loans. Motions for Relief from Stay should be brought by the real party in interest, namely “Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as record holder and nominee for the true beneficiary _________.” On Proofs of Claim, both the servicer and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. should be jointly named. The address to be used is the servicer’s address so that all trustee payments go directly to the servicer.
Version 1.1
November 1999
17
MERS RECOMMENDED FORECLOSURE PROCEDURE
FOR COLORADO
Foreclosing a loan in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.
(MERS) has been around since 1998. The reason why it works is because when the role
of MERS is examined, it becomes clear that MERS stands in the same position to
foreclose as the servicer. MERS, like the servicer, will be the record mortgage holder. It
is the Deed of Trust that gives MERS the authority to foreclose. However, because
Colorado differs from other states in that the Promissory Note controls, and MERS is not
the beneficial note holder, we recommend foreclosing in the servicer’s name by
endorsing the Note to the servicer.
We are amending our prior recommended Procedure to foreclose in MERS name due to
recent changes in the Colorado Foreclosure Statute. This revision was developed in
conjunction with experienced foreclosure counsel. The goal of the recommended
procedures is to avoid adding any extra steps or incurring any additional taxes or costs.
MERS will continually review the guidelines and, if necessary, will issue revisions.
The recommended guidelines to follow in your state are as follows:
Deeds of Trust are used and are generally foreclosed non-judicially pursuant to a power
of sale. In Colorado, the deed of trust names a Colorado public trustee rather than a
private trustee. Local counsel advises that a foreclosure can be brought in the name of
MERS. However, because the endorsement on the Note controls, and MERS holds the
mortgage lien on behalf of the Note Holder, it is a better practice to foreclose in the Note
Holder’s name. That may be the servicer of the loan.. This does not impact MERS
position as the mortgagee and no assignment from MERS to the servicer is necessary to initiate the foreclosure and the mortgage loan should remain registered on the MERS® System.
Keep in mind that the agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae) require a
blank endorsement of the promissory note when the seller/servicer sells a mortgage
loan to them. However, in Colorado, the requirement is that the promissory note
needs to be endorsed to the foreclosing entity, which is usually the servicer. Therefore, the note should be endorsed to servicer.
This switch in our recommendation is also predicated on the change in the Colorado Foreclosure Statute that now allows for a copy of the Note rather than the original
Note to be produced together with a Certificate that can be filed by certain entities of which MERS does not fit into in its current corporate structure. The certificate states
that the foreclosing entity is the owner of the Note/debt and is a qualified entity
under the Statute to use a copy of the Note. Please consult with your own counselon
how this change impacts your current foreclose procedure.
Version 2.0 18
December 2002
If the debtor declares bankruptcy, the proof of claim should be filed jointly in the
name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and the servicer. It is advised to file in both names in order to disclose to the court the relationship of
MERS and the servicer. The address to be used is the servicer’s address so that all
trustee payments go directly to the servicer, not to MERS. The Motion for Relief
from Stay may be filed either solely in the name of MERS or jointly with the
servicer. If MERS is the foreclosing entity, then it is MERS that needs the relief from the bankruptcy.
MERS Local Counsel:
Caren Castle, Esq.
Castle & Castle, P.C.
Denver Place Plaza Tower
1099 18th Street, Suite 2300
Denver, CO 80202
Tel: (303) 299-1800
Fax: (303) 299-1808
Version 2.0 19
December 2002
MERS RECOMMENDED FORECLOSURE PROCEDURE
FOR CONNECTICUT
Foreclosing a loan in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is something new in the foreclosure arena. When the role of MERS is examined, it becomes clear that MERS stands in the same position to foreclose as the servicer. MERS, like the servicer, will be the record mortgage holder. It is through the mortgage or deed of trust that the authority is given to MERS to foreclose.
To help make a smooth transition from foreclosing loans in the name of the servicer to foreclosing loans in the name of MERS, we have developed state by state recommended guidelines to follow. These guidelines were developed in conjunction with experienced foreclosure counsel in your state. We have been able to keep the MERS recommended procedures consistent with the existing foreclosure procedures. The goal of the recommended procedures is to avoid adding any extra steps or incurring any additional taxes or costs by foreclosing in the name of MERS instead of the servicer.
MERS will continually review the guidelines and, if necessary, will issue revisions. The recommended guidelines to follow in your state are as follows:
Mortgages are typically used and are foreclosed judicially either by strict foreclosure or by a power of sale. MERS local counsel advises that a loan can be foreclosed in the name of MERS. It up to the judge to decide which method will be used. The caption of the complaint should state Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as the plaintiff.
The body of the complaint should be the same as when foreclosing in the name of the servicer. MERS stands in the same shoes as the servicer to the extent that it is not the beneficial owner of the promissory note. An investor, typically a secondary market investor, will still be the ultimate owner of the promissory note.
The agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae) require a blank endorsement of the promissory note when the seller/servicer sells a mortgage loan to them. Therefore, the note should remain endorsed in blank when the foreclosure is commenced in the name of MERS unless it is legally required to be endorsed to the foreclosing entity, and not just the preferred method.3 If it is required to endorse the promissory note to the foreclosing entity, then the note may need to be endorsed to MERS.
Employees of the servicer will be certifying officers of MERS. This means they are authorized to sign any necessary documents as an officer of MERS. The certifying officer is granted this power by a corporate resolution of MERS. In other words, the
Version 1.1
November 1999
20
3 Local Counsel advises us that certain judges take the position that the note and mortgage must be held by the same entity. This is typically considered to be the servicer because if the promissory note is endorsed in blank and the servicer has physical custody of the note, the servicer will technically be the note holder as well as the record mortgage holder. By virtue of having the servicer’s employees be certifying officers of MERS, there can be an in-house transfer of possession of the note so that MERS is considered the note holder for purposes of foreclosing the loan.
same individual that signs the documents today for the servicer will continue to sign the documents, but now as an officer of MERS.
In a strict foreclosure, once the Judgement of Strict Foreclosure is entered, and the applicable redemption period has expired, a certificate of Foreclosure is filed on the land records that will reflect MERS as the property owner. MERS should remain in the land records for as short a time as possible. A subsequent deed should be prepared from MERS to the investor.4 Alternatively, at the time of the entering of the judgment, if an assignment of judgment is executed by MERS, judgment could automatically be entered into the investor’s name.
In a foreclosure by sale, a motion should be submitted to the judge requesting the judge that the servicer be allowed to bid at the auction. If it is the highest bid, then after approval of the sale by the Court, a closing will be scheduled whereby title should vest in the servicer.5
Because the MERS recommended procedure follows the same procedure that is used when the servicer forecloses in its name for the investor, no additional taxes or recording fees are incurred.
Evictions are handled the same way they are handled when the servicer commences the foreclosure as the foreclosing entity.
If the debtor declares bankruptcy, the proof of claim should be filed jointly in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and the title holder. It is advised to file in both names in order to disclose to the court the relationship of MERS and the servicer. The address to be used is the servicer’s address so that all trustee payments go directly to the servicer, not to MERS. The Motion for Relief from Stay may be filed either solely in the name of MERS or jointly with the name of the title holder. If MERS is the foreclosing entity, then it is MERS that needs the relief from the bankruptcy.
4 Some Connecticut Revenue Officers have taken the position that a state conveyance tax is due on the subsequent deed from the servicer to the investor. MERS local counsel is currently appealing this issue.
5 If a judge will not allow the servicer to “credit” bid, then a bid may be entered on behalf of MERS. Title will then vest with MERS momentarily until the deed to the investor is executed and recorded.
Version 1.1
November 1999
21
MERS RECOMMENDED FORECLOSURE PROCEDURE
FOR DELAWARE
Foreclosing a loan in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is something new in the foreclosure arena. However, when the role of MERS is examined, it becomes clear that MERS stands in the same position to foreclose as the servicer. MERS, like the servicer, will be the record mortgage holder. It is the mortgage that gives MERS the authority to foreclose.
To help make a smooth transition from foreclosing loans in the name of the servicer to foreclosing loans in the name of MERS, we have developed state by state recommended guidelines to follow. These guidelines were developed in conjunction with experienced foreclosure counsel in your state. We have been able to keep the MERS recommended procedures consistent with the existing foreclosure procedures. The goal of the recommended procedures is to avoid adding any extra steps or incurring any additional taxes or costs by foreclosing in the name of MERS instead of the servicer.
MERS will continually review the guidelines and, if necessary, will issue revisions. The recommended guidelines to follow in your state are as follows:
Mortgages are typically used and are foreclosed judicially. MERS local counsel advises that a loan can be foreclosed in the name of MERS. The same procedures and requirements that are followed when foreclosing in the name of the servicer are still followed when foreclosing in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. The major difference is that the caption of the complaint should state Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as the plaintiff.
The body of the complaint should be the same as when foreclosing in the name of the servicer. MERS stands in the same shoes as the servicer to the extent that it is not the beneficial owner of the promissory note. An investor, typically a secondary market investor, will still be the ultimate owner of the promissory note.6
The agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae) require a blank endorsement of the promissory note when the seller/servicer sells a mortgage loan to them. Therefore, the note should remain endorsed in blank when the foreclosure is commenced in the name of MERS unless it is legally required to be endorsed to the foreclosing entity and not just the preferred method.7
6 Even though the servicer has physical custody of the note, custom in the mortgage industry is that the investor (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae or a private investor) owns the beneficial rights to the promissory note.
7 If the promissory note is endorsed in blank and the servicer has physical custody of the note, the servicer will technically be the note holder as well as the record mortgage holder. By virtue of having the servicer’s employees be certifying officers of MERS, there can be an in-house transfer of possession of the note so that MERS is considered the note holder for purposes of foreclosing the loan.
Version 1.1
November 1999
22
Employees of the servicer will be certifying officers of MERS. This means they are authorized to sign any necessary documents as an officer of MERS. The certifying officer is granted this power by a corporate resolution of MERS. In other words, the same individual that signs the documents for the servicer will continue to sign the documents, but now as an officer of MERS.
After a judgment to MERS is entered, a sheriff’s sale is held. The certifying officer will instruct the foreclosing attorney regarding the bid to be entered on behalf of MERS. If it is the successful bid, the sheriff will be instructed to execute a deed directly to the investor. This is the same method that is used when the servicer forecloses in its name. The sheriff then issues a sheriff’s deed directly to the investor. Because the MERS recommended procedure follows the same procedure that is used when the servicer forecloses in its name, no additional recording or taxes are incurred by foreclosing in the name of MERS.
Evictions are handled the same way they are handled when the servicer commences the foreclosure as the foreclosing entity. If it is an FHA-insured loan and an eviction is necessary, then the bid assignment is given to the servicer instead of to HUD. This way, the servicer will proceed with the eviction the same way it would if the foreclosure were filed in its own name.
If the debtor declares bankruptcy, the proof of claim should be filed jointly in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and the servicer. It is advised to file in both names in order to disclose to the court the relationship of MERS and the servicer. The address to be used is the servicer’s address so that all trustee payments go directly to the servicer, not to MERS. The Motion for Relief from Stay may be filed either solely in the name of MERS or jointly with the servicer. If MERS is the foreclosing entity, then it is MERS that needs the relief from the bankruptcy.
Version 1.1
November 1999
23
MERS RECOMMENDED FORECLOSURE PROCEDURE
FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Foreclosing a loan in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is something new in the foreclosure arena. However, when the role of MERS is examined, it becomes clear that MERS stands in the same position to foreclose as the servicer. MERS, like the servicer, will be the record mortgage holder. It is the deed of trust that gives MERS the authority to foreclose.
To help make a smooth transition from foreclosing loans in the name of the servicer to foreclosing loans in the name of MERS, we have developed state by state recommended guidelines to follow. These guidelines were developed in conjunction with experienced foreclosure counsel in your state. We have been able to keep the MERS recommended procedures consistent with the existing foreclosure procedures. The goal of the recommended procedures is to avoid adding any extra steps or incurring any additional taxes or costs by foreclosing in the name of MERS instead of the servicer.
MERS will continually review the guidelines and, if necessary, will issue revisions. The recommended guidelines to follow in your state are as follows:
Deeds of Trust are foreclosed non-judicially. Local counsel advises that a foreclosure can be brought in the name of MERS. The Notice of Sale is sent, filed and published the same way it is when foreclosing in the name of the servicer with the same required information except that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) will be named as the foreclosing entity.
Employees of the servicer will be certifying officers of MERS. This means they are authorized to sign any necessary documents, such as Substitution of Trustee, as an officer of MERS. The certifying officer is granted this power by a corporate resolution of MERS. In other words, the same individual that signs the documents the servicer will continue to sign the documents, but now as an officer of MERS.
The agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae) require a blank endorsement of the promissory note when the seller/servicer sells a mortgage loan to them. Therefore, the note should remain endorsed in blank when the foreclosure is commenced in the name of MERS. This is the same requirement when foreclosing a loan in the name of the servicer. We have found that it is not legally required to have the note endorsed to MERS prior to the foreclosure.
At the trustee sale, the certifying officer will instruct the trustee regarding the bid to be entered on behalf of MERS. If the bid is the highest bid, then an unrecorded assignment of the deed of trust to the investor is given to the trustee prior to the sale. This assignment allows the Trustee’s Deed to be issued directly to the investor. We have been advised that this is the procedure used when foreclosing in the name of the servicer. Because the MERS recommended procedure follows the same Version 1.1
November 1999
24
procedure that is used when the servicer forecloses in its name, no additional taxes are incurred by foreclosing in the name of MERS.
Evictions are handled the same way they are handled when the servicer commences the foreclosure as the foreclosing entity. If it is an FHA-insured loan and an eviction is necessary, then the eviction can be brought in the name of MERS. At this point, MERS holds only equitable title. Once the eviction is completed, then the investor can be substituted in as the party to receive the Trustee’s Deed. Again, the same procedures should be followed as you do when foreclosing in the name of the servicer.
If the debtor declares bankruptcy, the proof of claim should be filed jointly in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and the servicer. It is advised to file in both names in order to disclose to the court the relationship of MERS and the servicer. The address to be used is the servicer’s address so that all trustee payments go directly to the servicer, not to MERS. The Motion for Relief from Stay may be filed either solely in the name of MERS or jointly with the servicer. If MERS is the foreclosing entity, then it is MERS that needs the relief from the bankruptcy.
Version 1.1
November 1999
25
MERS RECOMMENDED FORECLOSURE PROCEDURE
FOR FLORIDA
Foreclosing a loan in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is something new in the foreclosure arena. However, when the role of MERS is examined, it becomes clear that MERS stands in the same position to foreclose as the servicer. MERS, like the servicer, will be the mortgagee of record. It is the mortgage that gives MERS the authority to foreclose.
To help make a smooth transition from foreclosing loans in the name of the servicer to foreclosing loans in the name of MERS, we have developed state by state recommended guidelines to follow. These guidelines were developed in conjunction with experienced foreclosure counsel in your state. We have been able to keep the MERS recommended procedures consistent with the existing foreclosure procedures. The goal of the recommended procedures is to avoid adding any extra steps or incurring any additional taxes or costs by foreclosing in the name of MERS instead of the servicer.
MERS will continually review the guidelines and, if necessary, will issue revisions. The recommended guidelines to follow in your state are as follows:
Mortgages are typically used and are foreclosed judicially. MERS local counsel advises that a loan can be foreclosed in the name of MERS. When MERS has been assigned the mortgage, the caption of the complaint should state Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as the plaintiff. However, this changes slightly if MERS is the original mortgagee of record, meaning that MERS is named on the mortgage in a nominee capacity for the originating lender. The caption should then state Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as nominee for [insert name of the current servicer]. The key is how MERS is named as the mortgagee of record.
The body of the complaint should be the same as when foreclosing in the name of the servicer. MERS stands in the same shoes as the servicer to the extent that it is not the beneficial owner of the promissory note. An investor, typically a secondary market investor, will be the ultimate owner of the note.8
The agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae) require a blank endorsement of the promissory note when the seller/servicer sells a mortgage loan to them. Therefore, the note should remain endorsed in blank when the foreclosure is commenced unless it is legally required to be endorsed to the foreclosing entity and not just the preferred method. If it is required to endorse the promissory note to the foreclosing entity, then the note may need to be endorsed to MERS. However, we have not found it a requirement in Florida that the Note needs to be endorsed to the foreclosing entity.9
8 Even though the servicer has physical custody of the note, custom in the mortgage industry is that the investor (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae or a private investor) owns the beneficial rights to the promissory note.
9 If the promissory note is endorsed in blank and the servicer has physical custody of the note, the servicer will technically be the note holder as well as the record mortgage holder. By virtue of Version 1.1
November 1999
26
Employees of the servicer will be certifying officers of MERS. This means they are authorized to sign any necessary documents as an officer of MERS. The certifying officer is granted this power by a corporate resolution from MERS. In other words, the same individual that signs the documents for the servicer will continue to sign the documents, but now as an officer of MERS.
After a foreclosure judgment to MERS is entered, a public sale is held. The Plaintiff (MERS) has the option of assigning the foreclosure bid either prior to the foreclosure sale or in the ten (10) day period between the sale and the issuance of the Certificate of Title. The assignment is done with a motion filed with the court, and a court order is entered. If the bid is assigned, the certificate of title is issued directly to the assignee. This is the same method that is used when the servicer forecloses in its own name. Because the MERS recommended procedure follows the same procedure that is used when the servicer foreclosures in its name, no additional recording or transfer taxes are incurred by foreclosing in the name of MERS.
Evictions are handled the same way they are handled when the servicer commences the foreclosure as the foreclosing entity. If it is an FHA-insured loan and an eviction is necessary, then the bid assignment is given to the servicer instead of to HUD. This way, the servicer will proceed with the eviction the same way it would if the foreclosure were filed in its own name.
If the debtor declares bankruptcy, then proof of claim should be filed jointly in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and the servicer. It is advised to file in both names in order to disclose to the court the relationship of MERS and the servicer. The address to be used is the servicer’s address so that all trustee payments go directly to the servicer, not to MERS. The Motion for Relief from Stay may be filed either solely in the name of MERS or jointly with the servicer. If MERS is the foreclosing entity, then it is MERS that needs the relief from the bankruptcy.
having the servicer’s employees be certifying officers of MERS, there can be an in-house transfer of possession of the note so that MERS is considered the note holder for purposes of foreclosing the loan.
Version 1.1
November 1999
27
MERS RECOMMENDED FORECLOSURE PROCEDURE
FOR GEORGIA
Foreclosing a loan in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is something new in the foreclosure arena. However, when the role of MERS is examined, it becomes clear that MERS stands in the same position to foreclose as the servicer. MERS, like the servicer, will be the record mortgage holder. It is through the mortgage or deed of trust that MERS is given the authority to foreclose.
To help make a smooth transition from foreclosing loans in the name of the servicer to foreclosing loans in the name of MERS, we have developed state by state recommended guidelines to follow. These guidelines were developed in conjunction with experienced foreclosure counsel in your state. We have been able to keep the MERS recommended procedures consistent with the existing foreclosure procedures. The goal of the recommended procedures is to avoid adding any extra steps or incurring any additional taxes or costs by foreclosing in the name of MERS instead of the servicer.
MERS will continually review the guidelines and, if necessary, will issue revisions. The recommended guidelines to follow in your state are as follows:
Security Deeds are used and are generally foreclosed non-judicially pursuant to a power of sale. Local counsel advises that a foreclosure can be brought in the name of MERS. It is important to note that the same procedures and state requirements that are required to be followed when foreclosing in the servicer’s name still must be followed when foreclosing in the name of MERS. The foreclosure proceeding is commenced by advertising the foreclosure in the official county newspaper once a week for four consecutive weeks prior to the date of the foreclosure sale. A notice is mailed to the debtor’s residence at least 15 days prior to the sale date. You will continue to do everything that you normally do when foreclosing a mortgage in the servicer’s name. The only difference is that the foreclosing entity is Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.
Employees of the servicer will be certifying officers of MERS. This means they are authorized to sign any necessary documents as an officer of MERS. The certifying officer is granted this power by a corporate resolution from MERS. In other words, the same individual that signs the documents today for the servicer will continue to sign the documents, but now as an officer of MERS.
The agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae) require a blank endorsement of the promissory note when the seller/servicer sells a mortgage loan to them. Therefore, the note should remain endorsed in blank when the foreclosure is commenced in the name of MERS.
At the sale, the certifying officer will instruct the foreclosing attorney to enter a bid on behalf of the servicer. This is the same process that is used today when
Version 1.1
November 1999
28
foreclosing in the servicer’s name. If it is the successful bid, then the attorney will be instructed to execute the deed under power directly to the servicer. We have been advised that the current foreclosure procedure is a two-deed process with the servicer taking title and then executing a special warranty deed to the investor. Therefore, the MERS recommended procedure would conform to the current practice. Because the MERS recommended procedure follows the same procedure that is used when the servicer forecloses in its name, no additional recording or transfer taxes are incurred by foreclosing in the name of MERS.
Evictions are handled the same way they are handled when the servicer commences the foreclosure as the foreclosing entity. The servicer is issued the deed under power and therefore commences the eviction in the servicer’s name.
If the debtor declares bankruptcy, the proof of claim should be filed jointly in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and the servicer. It is advised to file in both names in order to disclose to the court the relationship of MERS and the servicer. The address to be used is the servicer’s address so that all trustee payments go directly to the servicer, not to MERS. The Motion for Relief from Stay may be filed either solely in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. or jointly with the servicer. If MERS is the foreclosing entity, then it is MERS that needs the relief from the bankruptcy.
Version 1.1
November 1999
29
MERS RECOMMENDED FORECLOSURE PROCEDURE
FOR HAWAII
Foreclosing a loan in the name of MERS is something new in the foreclosure arena. However, when the role of MERS is examined, it becomes clear that MERS stands in the same position to foreclose as the servicer. MERS, like the servicer, will be the record mortgage holder. It is through the mortgage or deed of trust that MERS is given the authority to foreclose.
To help make a smooth transition from foreclosing loans in the name of the servicer to foreclosing loans in the name of MERS, we have developed state by state recommended guidelines to follow. These guidelines were developed in conjunction with experienced foreclosure counsel in your state. We have been able to keep the MERS recommended procedures consistent with the existing foreclosure procedures. The goal of the recommended procedures is to avoid adding any extra steps or incurring any additional taxes or costs by foreclosing in the name of MERS instead of the servicer.
MERS will continually review the guidelines and, if necessary, will issue revisions. The recommended guidelines to follow in your state are as follows:
Mortgages are typically used and are foreclosed judicially10. MERS local counsel advises that a loan can be foreclosed in the name of MERS. The same procedures and state requirements that are followed when foreclosing in the name of the servicer are still followed when foreclosing in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. The major difference is that the caption of the complaint will state Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. in place of the servicer’s name.
The body of the complaint should be the same as when foreclosing in the name of the servicer. MERS stands in the same shoes as the servicer to the extent that it is not the beneficial owner of the promissory note. A secondary market investor will still be the ultimate owner of the promissory note.
The agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae) require a blank endorsement of the promissory note when the seller/servicer sells a mortgage loan to them. Therefore, the note should remain endorsed in blank when the foreclosure is commenced in the name of MERS.
Employees of the servicer will be certifying officers of MERS. This means they are authorized to sign any necessary documents as an officer of MERS. The certifying officer is granted this power by a corporate resolution from MERS. In other words, the same individual that signs the documents for the servicer will continue to sign the documents, but now as an officer of MERS.
10 Freddie Mac has initiated a non-judicial program in Hawaii effective January 1, 1998.
Version 1.1
November 1999
30
After a foreclosure judgment to MERS is entered, a public auction is held. A bid is entered on behalf of MERS, and if the successful bid, then the Commissioner will be instructed that MERS has selected a nominee to be the ultimate purchaser of the property. (The nominee can be the servicer or the investor).
After the hearing to confirm the sale and the confirmation order, a deed is executed directly to the nominee. This is the same method that is used today when the servicer forecloses in its name. Because the MERS recommended procedure follows the same procedure that is used when the servicer forecloses in its name, no additional recording fees or taxes are incurred by foreclosing in the name of MERS. A conveyance tax and recording fee is paid on the transfer of the property from the commissioner to the nominee of MERS.
Evictions are handled the same way they are handled when the servicer commences the foreclosure as the foreclosing entity. If it is an FHA-insured loan and an eviction is necessary, then the bid assignment is given to the servicer instead of to HUD. This way, the servicer will proceed with the eviction the same way it would if the foreclosure had been filed in its own name.
If the debtor declares bankruptcy, the proof of claim should be filed jointly in the name of MERS and the servicer. It is advised to file in both names in order to disclose to the court the relationship of MERS and the servicer. The address to be used is the servicer’s address so that all trustee payments go directly to the servicer, not to MERS. The Motion for Relief from Stay may be filed either solely in the name of MERS or jointly with the servicer. If MERS is the foreclosing entity, then it is MERS that needs the relief from the bankruptcy.
Version 1.1
November 1999
31
MERS RECOMMENDED FORECLOSURE PROCEDURE
FOR IDAHO
Foreclosing a loan in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is something new in the foreclosure arena. However, when the role of MERS is examined, it becomes clear that MERS stands in the same position to foreclose as the servicer. MERS, like the servicer, will be the record mortgage holder. It is through the deed of trust that MERS is given the authority to foreclose.
To help make a smooth transition from foreclosing loans in the name of the servicer to foreclosing loans in the name of MERS, we have developed state by state recommended guidelines to follow. These guidelines were developed in conjunction with experienced foreclosure counsel in your state. We have been able to keep the MERS recommended procedures consistent with the existing foreclosure procedures. The goal of the recommended procedures is to avoid adding any extra steps or incurring any additional taxes or costs by foreclosing in the name of MERS instead of the servicer.
MERS will continually review the guidelines and, if necessary, will issue revisions. The recommended guidelines to follow in your state are as follows:
Trust Deeds are used and are generally foreclosed non-judicially pursuant to a power of sale. Local counsel advises that a foreclosure can be brought in the name of MERS. It is important to note that the same procedures and requirements that are followed when foreclosing in the servicer’s name must still be followed when foreclosing in the name of MERS. The Trustee must still file and record the Notice of Default and provide the grantor with a Notice of Sale. The Notice of Sale is published the same way is it when foreclosing in the name of the servicer except that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) will be named as the foreclosing entity.
Employees of the servicer will be certifying officers of MERS. This means they are authorized to sign any necessary documents, such as the Substitution of Trustee, as an officer of MERS. The certifying officer is granted this power by a corporate resolution of MERS. In other words, the same individual that signs the documents for the servicer will continue to sign the documents, but now as an officer of MERS.
The agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae) require a blank endorsement of the promissory note when the seller/servicer sells a mortgage loan to them. The note should remain endorsed in blank when the servicer commences foreclosure. Therefore, the note should remain endorsed in blank when the foreclosure is commenced in the name of MERS. We have not found that it is legally required that the note be endorsed to the foreclosing entity.
At the trustee sale, the certifying officer will instruct the trustee regarding the bid to be entered on behalf of MERS. If it is the highest bid, then the trustee will be instructed by an instruction letter to execute the Trustee’s Deed directly to the
Version 1.1
November 1999
32
investor. We have been advised that the current foreclosure procedure is a one-deed process with the trustee executing the Trustee’s Deed directly to the investor. The MERS recommended procedure is the same procedure followed when foreclosing in the name of the servicer. Therefore, no additional recording or transfer taxes are incurred by foreclosing in the name of MERS.
Evictions are handled the same way they are handled when the servicer commences the foreclosure as the foreclosing entity. If it is an FHA-insured loan, then the Trustee’s Deed may be issued to the servicer in order for the servicer to commence the eviction. Another option may be that the trustee’s deed is not recorded to the investor until after the eviction is completed. The eviction should be conducted the same way it would be conducted if the servicer commenced the foreclosure.
If the debtor declares bankruptcy, the proof of claim should be filed jointly in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and the servicer. It is advised to file in both names in order to disclose to the court the relationship of MERS and the servicer. The address to be used is the servicer’s address so that all trustee payments go directly to the servicer, not to MERS. The Motion for Relief from Stay may be filed either solely in the name of MERS or jointly with the servicer. If MERS is the foreclosing entity, then it is MERS that needs the relief from the bankruptcy.
Version 1.1
November 1999
33
MERS RECOMMENDED FORECLOSURE PROCEDURE
FOR ILLINOIS
Foreclosing a loan in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is something new in the foreclosure arena. However, when the role of MERS is examined, it becomes clear that MERS stands in the same position to foreclose as the servicer. MERS, like the servicer, will be the record mortgage holder. It is through the mortgage or deed of trust that MERS is given the authority to foreclose.
To help make a smooth transition from foreclosing loans in the name of the servicer to foreclosing loans in the name of MERS, we have developed state by state recommended guidelines to follow. These guidelines were developed in conjunction with experienced foreclosure counsel in your state. We have been able to keep the MERS recommended procedures consistent with the existing foreclosure procedures. The goal of the recommended procedures is to avoid adding any extra steps or incurring any additional taxes or costs by foreclosing in the name of MERS instead of the servicer.
MERS will continually review the guidelines and, if necessary, will issue revisions. The recommended guidelines to follow in your state are as follows:
Mortgages are typically used and are foreclosed judicially. MERS local counsel advises that a loan can be foreclosed in the name of MERS. The caption of the complaint should state Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as the plaintiff. The body of the complaint should be the same as when foreclosing in the name of the servicer.
MERS stands in the same shoes as the servicer to the extent that it is not the beneficial owner of the promissory note. An investor, typically a secondary market investor, will still be the ultimate owner of the promissory note.11
The agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae) require a blank endorsement of the promissory note when the seller/servicer sells a mortgage loan to them. Therefore, the note should remain endorsed in blank when the foreclosure is commenced in the name of MERS unless it is legally required to be endorsed to the foreclosing entity and not just the preferred method. We have been advised that sometimes there is an endorsement of the note to the servicer prior to foreclosure. However, we recommend the agencies’ policies be followed.
Employees of the servicer will be certifying officers of MERS. This means they are authorized to sign any necessary documents as an officer of MERS. The certifying
11 If the promissory note is endorsed in blank and the servicer has physical custody of the note, the servicer will technically be the note holder as well as the record mortgage holder. By virtue of having its employees become certifying officers of MERS, there can be an in-house transfer of possession of the note so that MERS is considered the note holder for purposes of foreclosing the loan.
Version 1.1
November 1999
34
officer is granted this power by a corporate resolution of MERS. In other words, the same individual that signs the documents for the servicer will continue to sign the documents, but now as an officer of MERS.
After a judgment to MERS is entered and the applicable redemption period expires, a foreclosure sale is held. A bid is entered on behalf of MERS, and if the successful bid, then the Certificate of Sale would be assigned to the investor. This assignment is not normally recorded. A confirmation hearing will be held confirming the sale. This is the same method that is used when the servicer forecloses in its name for the investor. After the entry of the Order of Confirmation, the holder of the Certificate of Sale is entitled to a deed. Because the MERS recommended procedure follows the same procedure that is used when the servicer forecloses in its name, no additional taxes are incurred by foreclosing in the name of MERS.
Evictions are handled the same way they are handled when the servicer commences the foreclosure as the foreclosing entity. If it is an FHA-insured loan and an eviction is necessary, then the deed is not recorded until after the eviction is completed. This way, the servicer will proceed with the eviction the same way it would if the foreclosure were filed in its own name.
If the debtor declares bankruptcy, the proof of claim should be filed jointly in the name of MERS and the servicer. It is advised to file in both names in order to disclose to the court the relationship of MERS and the servicer. The address to be used is the servicer’s address so that all trustee payments go directly to the servicer. The Motion for Relief from Stay may be filed either solely in the name of MERS or jointly with the servicer. If MERS is the foreclosing entity, then it is MERS that needs the relief from the bankruptcy.
Version 1.1
November 1999
35
MERS RECOMMENDED FORECLOSURE PROCEDURE
FOR INDIANA
Foreclosing a loan in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is something new in the foreclosure arena. However, when the role of MERS is examined, it becomes clear that MERS stands in the same position to foreclose as the servicer. MERS, like the servicer, will be the record mortgage holder. It is the mortgage or deed of trust that gives MERS the authority to foreclose.
To help make a smooth transition from foreclosing loans in the name of the servicer to foreclosing loans in the name of MERS, we have developed state by state recommended guidelines to follow. These guidelines were developed in conjunction with experienced foreclosure counsel in your state. We have been able to keep the MERS recommended procedures consistent with the existing foreclosure procedures. The goal of the recommended procedures is to avoid adding any extra steps or incurring any additional taxes or costs by foreclosing in the name of MERS instead of the servicer.
MERS will continually review the guidelines and, if necessary, will issue revisions. The recommended guidelines to follow in your state are as follows:
Mortgages are typically used and are foreclosed judicially. MERS local counsel advises that a loan can be foreclosed in the name of MERS. When MERS has been assigned the mortgage, the caption of the complaint should state Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as the plaintiff. However, this changes slightly if MERS is the original mortgagee of record, meaning that MERS is named on the mortgage in a nominee capacity for the originating lender. The caption should then state Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as nominee for [insert name of the current servicer]. The key is how MERS is named as the mortgagee of record.
The body of the complaint should be the same as when foreclosing in the name of the servicer. MERS stands in the same shoes as the servicer to the extent that it is not the beneficial owner of the promissory note.12 An investor, typically a secondary market investor, will still be the ultimate owner of the promissory note.
The agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae) require a blank endorsement of the promissory note when the seller/servicer sells a mortgage loan to them. Therefore, the note should remain endorsed in blank when the foreclosure is commenced in the name of MERS. We have been advised that sometimes there is an endorsement of the note to the servicer prior to foreclosure. However, we recommend that the agencies’ policies be followed.
12 If the promissory note is endorsed in blank and the servicer has physical custody of the note, the servicer will technically be the note holder as well as the record mortgage holder. By virtue of having its employees become certifying officers of MERS, there can be an in-house transfer of possession of the note so that MERS is considered the note holder for purposes of foreclosing the loan.
Version 1.1
November 1999
36
Employees of the servicer will be certifying officers of MERS. This means they are authorized to sign any necessary documents as an officer of MERS. The certifying officer is granted this power by a corporate resolution from MERS. In other words, the same individual that signs the documents for the servicer will continue to sign the documents, but now as an officer of MERS.
After a foreclosure judgment to MERS is entered, MERS will assign the judgment and the right to bid to the servicer. This assignment of the judgment is filed with the Clerk of the Court in which the judgment is pending. A sheriff’s sale is scheduled as a result of the filing of a praecipe for sale. The servicer will enter a bid as the bid assignee and if the highest bidder, the Return of Sale will reflect this. The assignment of the judgment allows the servicer to bid so that title can be taken directly by the servicer. The servicer can then convey a subsequent deed to the investor. Because the MERS recommended procedure closely follows the same procedure that is used when the servicer forecloses in its name, no additional transfer taxes are incurred by foreclosing in the name of MERS.
Evictions are handled the same way they are handled when the servicer commences the foreclosure as the foreclosing entity. Because the foreclosure judgment is assigned to the servicer, the eviction can be brought in the name of the servicer.
If the debtor declares bankruptcy, the proof of claim should be filed jointly in the name of MERS and the servicer. It is advised to file in both names in order to disclose to the court the relationship of MERS and the servicer. The address to be used is the servicer’s address so that all trustee payments go directly to the servicer. The Motion for Relief from Stay may be filed either solely in the name of MERS or jointly with the servicer. If MERS is the foreclosing entity, then it is MERS that needs the relief from the bankruptcy.
Version 1.1
November 1999
37
MERS RECOMMENDED FORECLOSURE PROCEDURE
FOR IOWA
Foreclosing a loan in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is something new in the foreclosure arena. However, when the role of MERS is examined, it becomes clear that MERS stands in the same position to foreclose as the servicer. MERS, like the servicer, will be the record mortgage holder. It is the mortgage or deed of trust that gives MERS the authority to foreclose.
To help make a smooth transition from foreclosing loans in the name of the servicer to foreclosing loans in the name of MERS, we have developed state by state recommended guidelines to follow. These guidelines were developed in conjunction with experienced foreclosure counsel in your state. We have been able to keep the MERS recommended procedures consistent with the existing foreclosure procedures. The goal of the recommended procedures is to avoid adding any extra steps or incurring any additional taxes or costs by foreclosing in the name of MERS instead of the servicer.
MERS will continually review the guidelines and, if necessary, will issue revisions. The recommended guidelines to follow in your state are as follows:
Generally, mortgages are used and are foreclosed judicially. MERS local counsel advises that a loan can be foreclosed in the name of MERS. The caption of the petition of foreclosure should name Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) as the plaintiff. The body of the complaint should be the same as when foreclosing in the name of the servicer. MERS stands in the same shoes as the servicer to the extent that it is not the beneficial owner of the promissory note. An investor, typically a secondary market investor, will still be the ultimate owner of the promissory note.
The agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae) require a blank endorsement when a seller/servicer sells a mortgage loan to them. Therefore, the note should remain endorsed in blank when the foreclosure is commenced in the name of MERS. We have been advised that sometimes there is an endorsement of the note to the servicer prior to foreclosure. However, we recommend that the agencies’ policies be followed.
Employees of the servicer will be certifying officers of MERS. This means they are authorized to sign any necessary documents, such as the substitution of trustee, as an officer of MERS. The certifying officer is granted this power by a corporate resolution of MERS. In other words, the same individual that signs the documents for the servicer will continue to sign the documents, but now as an officer of MERS.
After the foreclosure judgment to MERS is entered, there is a sheriff’s foreclosure sale. At the sale, a bid would be entered on behalf of MERS, and if the bid is successful, MERS will receive a certificate of purchase which it will assign to the
Version 1.1
November 1999
38
servicer or the investor.13 The sheriff’s deed is then issued directly to the servicer or investor. Because the MERS recommended procedure follows the procedures used when foreclosing in the name of the servicer, no additional transfer taxes are incurred.
Evictions are handled the same way they are handled when the servicer commences the foreclosure as the foreclosing entity. If it is an FHA-insured loan and an eviction is necessary, then the servicer will proceed with the eviction the same way it would if the foreclosure were filed in its own name.
If the debtor declares bankruptcy, the proof of claim should be filed jointly in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and the servicer. It is advised to file in both names in order to disclose to the court the relationship of MERS and the servicer. The address to be used is the servicer’s address so that all trustee payments go directly to the servicer, not to MERS. The Motion for Relief from Stay may be filed either solely in the name of MERS or jointly with the servicer. If MERS is the foreclosing entity, then it is MERS that needs the relief from the bankruptcy.
13 On a foreclosure without the right of redemption, there is no Certificate of Purchase issued. Instead, the foreclosure judgment should be assigned to the servicer or investor. To whom the judgment is issued will depend upon the instructions given from the servicer or investor. If the judgment is not assigned from MERS, this may cause title to be issued directly to MERS if a bid is entered on the behalf of MERS at the sheriff’s sale. If title is then subsequently passed to a private investor, revenue stamps may be incurred.
Version 1.1
November 1999
39
MERS RECOMMENDED FORECLOSURE PROCEDURE
FOR KANSAS
Foreclosing a loan in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is something new in the foreclosure arena. However, when the role of MERS is examined, it becomes clear that MERS stands in the same position to foreclose as the servicer. MERS, like the servicer, will be the record mortgage holder. It is through the deed of trust that MERS is given the authority to foreclose.
To help make a smooth transition from foreclosing loans in the name of the servicer to foreclosing loans in the name of MERS, we have developed state by state recommended guidelines to follow. These guidelines were developed in conjunction with experienced foreclosure counsel in your state. We have been able to keep the MERS recommended procedures consistent with the existing foreclosure procedures. The goal of the recommended procedures is to avoid adding any extra steps or incurring any additional taxes or costs by foreclosing in the name of MERS instead of the servicer.
MERS will continually review the guidelines and, if necessary, will issue revisions. The recommended guidelines to follow in your state are as follows:
Mortgages are typically used and are foreclosed judicially. MERS local counsel advises that a loan can be foreclosed in the name of MERS. The caption of the complaint should state Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as the plaintiff. The body of the complaint should be the same as when foreclosing in the name of the servicer. MERS stands in the same shoes as the servicer to the extent that it is not the beneficial owner of the promissory note. An investor, typically a secondary market investor, will still be the ultimate owner of the promissory note.
The agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae) require that the promissory note be endorsed in blank when the seller/servicer sells a mortgage loan to them. Therefore, the note should remain endorsed in blank when the foreclosure is commenced in the name of MERS unless it is legally required to be endorsed to the foreclosing entity and not just the preferred method. We have been advised that sometimes there is an endorsement of the note to the servicer prior to the foreclosure. However, we recommend that the agencies’ requirements be followed.
Employees of the servicer will be certifying officers of MERS. This means they are authorized to sign any necessary documents as an officer of MERS. The certifying officer is granted this power by a corporate resolution of MERS. In other words, the same individual that signs the documents for the servicer will continue to sign the documents, but now as an officer of MERS.
After a judgment to MERS is entered, and the district court issues an order of sale, a notice of the sheriff’s sale is published and a sale is then held. The certifying officer will instruct the foreclosing attorney as to the bid to be entered on behalf of MERS. Version 1.1
November 1999
40
If the successful bid, the sheriff will issue a certificate of purchase to MERS. This certificate will then be assigned from MERS to the investor. This is the same method that is used when the servicer forecloses in its name. After the applicable redemption period, a deed will be issued directly to the investor. Because the MERS recommended procedure follows the same procedure that is used when the servicer forecloses in its name, no additional taxes are incurred by foreclosing in the name of MERS.
Evictions are handled the same way they are handled when the servicer commences the foreclosure as the foreclosing entity. If it is an FHA-insured loan and an eviction is necessary, then the bid assignment is given to the servicer instead of to HUD. This way, the servicer will proceed with the eviction the same way it would if the foreclosure were filed in its own name.
If the debtor declares bankruptcy, the proof of claim should be filed jointly in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and the servicer. It is advised to file in both names in order to disclose to the court the relationship of MERS and the servicer. The address to be used is the servicer’s address so that all trustee payments go directly to the servicer, not to MERS. The Motion for Relief from Stay may be filed either solely in the name of MERS or jointly with the servicer. If MERS is the foreclosing entity, then it is MERS that needs the relief from the bankruptcy.
Version 1.1
November 1999
41
MERS RECOMMENDED FORECLOSURE PROCEDURE
FOR KENTUCKY
Foreclosing a loan in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is something new in the foreclosure arena. However, when the role of MERS is examined, it becomes clear that MERS stands in the same position to foreclose as the servicer. MERS, like the servicer, will be the record mortgage holder. It is through the mortgage or deed of trust that MERS is given the authority to foreclose.
To help make a smooth transition from foreclosing loans in the name of the servicer to foreclosing loans in the name of MERS, we have developed state by state recommended guidelines to follow. These guidelines were developed in conjunction with experienced foreclosure counsel in your state. We have been able to keep the MERS recommended procedures consistent with the existing foreclosure procedures. The goal of the recommended procedures is to avoid adding any extra steps or incurring any additional taxes or costs by foreclosing in the name of MERS instead of the servicer.
MERS will continually review the guidelines and, if necessary, will issue revisions. The recommended guidelines to follow in your state are as follows:
Mortgages are typically used and are foreclosed judicially. MERS local counsel advises that a loan can be foreclosed in the name of MERS. The caption of the complaint should state Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as the plaintiff. The body of the complaint should be the same as when foreclosing in the name of the servicer. MERS stands in the same shoes as the servicer to the extent that it is not the beneficial owner of the promissory note. An investor, typically a secondary market investor, will still be the ultimate owner of the promissory note.
The agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae) require a blank endorsement of the promissory note when the seller/servicer sells a mortgage loan to them. Therefore, the note should remain endorsed in blank when the foreclosure is commenced in the name of MERS. We have been advised that sometimes there is an endorsement of the note to the servicer prior to foreclosure. However, we recommend that the agencies’ policies be followed.
Employees of the servicer will be certifying officers of MERS. This means they are authorized to sign any necessary documents as an officer of MERS. The certifying officer is granted this power by a corporate resolution of MERS. In other words, the same individual that signs the documents for the servicer will continue to sign the documents, but now as an officer of MERS.
After a judgment to MERS is entered, a foreclosure sale is held. The certifying officer will instruct the foreclosing attorney regarding the bid to be entered on behalf of MERS. If it is the successful bid, it will be assigned to the investor by simple documentation that is signed by the foreclosing attorney. The bid assignment does
Version 1.1
November 1999
42
not need to be recorded. This is the same method that is used today when the servicer forecloses in its name.
The Motion to Confirm the sale is filed, and after the sale is confirmed, a deed will be prepared by the Master Commissioner to the investor. Because the MERS recommended procedure follows the same procedure that is used when the servicer forecloses in its name, no additional recording fees or transfer taxes are incurred by foreclosing in the name of MERS.
Evictions are handled the same way they are handled when the servicer commences the foreclosure as the foreclosing entity. If it is an FHA-insured loan and an eviction is necessary, then the bid assignment is given to the servicer instead of to HUD. This way, the servicer will proceed with the eviction the same way it would if the foreclosure were filed in its own name.
If the debtor declares bankruptcy, the proof of claim should be filed jointly in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and the servicer. It is advised to file in both names in order to disclose to the court the relationship of MERS and the servicer. The address to be used is the servicer’s address so that all trustee payments go directly to the servicer, not to MERS. The Motion for Relief from Stay may be filed either solely in the name of MERS or jointly with the servicer. If MERS is the foreclosing entity, then it is MERS that needs the relief from the bankruptcy.
Version 1.1
November 1999
43
MERS RECOMMENDED FORECLOSURE PROCEDURE
FOR LOUISIANA
Foreclosing a loan in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is something new in the foreclosure arena. However, when the role of MERS is examined, it becomes clear that MERS stands in the same position to foreclose as the servicer. MERS, like the servicer, will be the record mortgage holder. It is through the mortgage or deed of trust that MERS is given the authority to foreclose.
To help make a smooth transition from foreclosing loans in the name of the servicer to foreclosing loans in the name of MERS, we have developed state by state recommended guidelines to follow. These guidelines were developed in conjunction with experienced foreclosure counsel in your state. We have been able to keep the MERS recommended procedures consistent with the existing foreclosure procedures. The goal of the recommended procedures is to avoid adding any extra steps or incurring any additional taxes or costs by foreclosing in the name of MERS instead of the servicer.
MERS will continually review the guidelines and, if necessary, will issue revisions. The recommended guidelines to follow in your state are as follows:
Mortgages are employed in Louisiana in real estate transactions and must be foreclosed judicially, usually by a proceeding known as “Executory Process.” MERS local counsel advises that Louisiana law does not prohibit a loan from being foreclosed in the name of MERS.14 When MERS has been assigned the mortgage, the caption of the complaint should state Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as the plaintiff. However, this changes slightly if MERS is the original mortgagee of record, meaning that MERS is named on the mortgage in a nominee capacity for the originating lender, its successors and assigns. The caption should then state Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as nominee for [insert name of the current servicer]. The key is how MERS becomes the mortgage holder.
The body of the complaint should be the same as when foreclosing in the name of the servicer. MERS stands in the same shoes as the servicer to the extent that it is not the beneficial owner of the promissory note. An investor, typically a secondary market investor, will still be the ultimate owner of the promissory note.15
The agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae) require a blank endorsement of the promissory note when the seller/servicer sells a mortgage loan to them.16 Therefore, the note should remain endorsed in blank when the foreclosure is commenced in the name of MERS. However, it seems to be the standard practice that the blank endorsement is cancelled and the note is endorsed to the servicer to
14 Please Note: Fannie Mae’s foreclosure regulations require an assignment from MERS to Fannie Mae in the Parish of Orleans. This means that Fannie Mae will be the foreclosing entity. This is the same requirement that exists when the servicer is the record mortgage holder.
15 Even though the servicer has physical custody of the note, custom in the mortgage industry is that the investor (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae or a private investor) owns the beneficial rights to the promissory note.
Version 1.1
November 1999
44
possession of the note so that MERS is considered the note holder for purposes of foreclosing the loan.
foreclose. If it is required to endorse the promissory note to the foreclosing entity, then the note may need to be endorsed to MERS.
Employees of the servicer will be certifying officers of MERS. This means they are authorized to sign any necessary documents as an officer of MERS. The certifying officer is granted this power by a corporate resolution of MERS. In other words, the same individual that signs the documents for the servicer will continue to sign the documents, but now as an officer of MERS.
After the Petition is filed and the judge signs an order of executory process, the writ of seizure and sale is issued by the clerk and is served by the sheriff upon the mortgagor. After the foreclosure is published for the required amount of time, a sheriff’s sale is held. The certifying officer will instruct the foreclosing attorney as to the bid to be entered on behalf of MERS. If it is the successful bid, then the sheriff will issue a deed to MERS. MERS will then issue a subsequent deed to the investor.17 This is the same method that is used when the servicer forecloses in its name. Because the MERS recommended procedure follows the same procedure that is used when the servicer forecloses in its name, no additional taxes are incurred by foreclosing in the name of MERS.
Evictions are handled the same way they are handled when the servicer commences the foreclosure as the foreclosing entity.
If the debtor declares bankruptcy, the proof of claim should be filed jointly in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and the servicer. It is advised to file in both names in order to disclose to the court the relationship of MERS and the servicer. The address to be used is the servicer’s address so that all trustee payments go directly to the servicer, not to MERS. The Motion for Relief from Stay may be filed either solely in the name of MERS or jointly with the servicer. If MERS is the foreclosing entity, then it is MERS that needs the relief from the bankruptcy.
17 If the promissory note is endorsed in blank and the servicer has physical custody of the note, the servicer will technically be the note holder as well as the record mortgage holder. By virtue of having the servicer’s employees be certifying officers of MERS, there can be an in-house transfer of
17 MERS should remain as the titleholder for as short of time as possible.
Version 1.1
November 1999
45
MERS RECOMMENDED FORECLOSURE PROCEDURE
FOR MAINE
Foreclosing a loan in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is something new in the foreclosure arena. However, when the role of MERS is examined, it becomes clear that MERS stands in the same position to foreclose as the servicer. MERS, like the servicer, will be the record mortgage holder. It is through the mortgage or deed of trust that MERS is given the authority to foreclose.
To help make a smooth transition from foreclosing loans in the name of the servicer to foreclosing loans in the name of MERS, we have developed state by state recommended guidelines to follow. These guidelines were developed in conjunction with experienced foreclosure counsel in your state. We have been able to keep the MERS recommended procedures consistent with the existing foreclosure procedures. The goal of the recommended procedures is to avoid adding any extra steps or incurring any additional taxes or costs by foreclosing in the name of MERS instead of the servicer.
MERS will continually review the guidelines and, if necessary, will issue revisions. The recommended guidelines to follow in your state are as follows:
Mortgages are typically used and are foreclosed judicially. MERS local counsel advises that a loan can be foreclosed in the name of MERS.18 The caption of the complaint should state Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as the plaintiff.
The body of the complaint should be the same as when foreclosing in the name of the servicer. MERS stands in the same shoes as the servicer to the extent that it is not the beneficial owner of the promissory note. An investor, typically a secondary market investor, will still be the ultimate owner of the promissory note.19
The agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae) require a blank endorsement of the promissory note when the seller/servicer sells a mortgage loan to them. Therefore, the note should remain endorsed in blank when the foreclosure is commenced in the name of MERS. We have been advised that sometimes there is an endorsement of the note to the servicer prior to the foreclosure. However, we recommend adhering to the agencies’ policies.
18 We have been advised that the named plaintiff in the foreclosure action should be both the record holder of the mortgage and the holder of the promissory note. This is typically considered to be the servicer because if the promissory note is endorsed in blank and the servicer has physical custody of the note, the servicer will technically be the note holder as well as the record mortgage holder. By virtue of having the servicer’s employees be certifying officers of MERS, there can be an in-house transfer of possession of the note so that MERS is considered the note holder for purposes of foreclosing the loan.
19 Even though the servicer has physical custody of the note, custom in the mortgage industry is that the investor (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae or a private investor) owns the beneficial rights to the promissory note.
Version 1.1
November 1999
46
Employees of the servicer will be certifying officers of MERS. This means they are authorized to sign any necessary documents as an officer of MERS. The certifying officer is granted this power by a corporate resolution of MERS. In other words, the same individual that signs the documents for the servicer will continue to sign the documents, but now as an officer of MERS.
After a judgment to MERS is entered and the redemption period has expired, a public auction is held. The certifying officer will instruct the foreclosing attorney as to the bid to be entered on behalf of MERS. If the successful bid, then MERS will assign its bid and any deficiency judgment to the investor. This is the same method that is used when the servicer forecloses in its name. The foreclosure deed will issue directly to the investor. Because the MERS recommended procedure follows the same procedure that is used when the servicer forecloses in its name, no additional taxes are incurred by foreclosing in the name of MERS.
Evictions are handled the same way they are handled when the servicer commences the foreclosure as the foreclosing entity. If it is an FHA-insured loan and an eviction is necessary, then the bid assignment is given to the servicer instead of to HUD. This way, the servicer will proceed with the eviction the same way it would if the foreclosure were filed in its own name.
If the debtor declares bankruptcy, the proof of claim should be filed jointly in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and the servicer. It is advised to file in both names in order to disclose to the court the relationship of MERS and the servicer. The address to be used is the servicer’s address so that all trustee payments go directly to the servicer, not to MERS. The Motion for Relief from Stay may be filed either solely in the name of MERS or jointly with the servicer. If MERS is the foreclosing entity, then it is MERS that needs the relief from the bankruptcy.
Version 1.1
November 1999
47
MERS RECOMMENDED FORECLOSURE PROCEDURE
FOR MARYLAND
Foreclosing a loan in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is something new in the foreclosure arena. However, when the role of MERS is examined, it becomes clear that MERS stands in the same position to foreclose as the servicer. MERS, like the servicer, will be the mortgagee of record. It is through the deed of trust that MERS is given the authority to foreclose.
To help make a smooth transition from foreclosing loans in the name of the servicer to foreclosing loans in the name of MERS, we have developed state by state recommended guidelines to follow. These guidelines were developed in conjunction with experienced foreclosure counsel in your state. We have been able to keep the MERS recommended procedures consistent with the existing foreclosure procedures. The goal of the recommended procedures is to avoid adding any extra steps or incurring any additional taxes or costs by foreclosing in the name of MERS instead of the servicer.
MERS will continually review the guidelines and, if necessary, will issue revisions. The recommended guidelines to follow in your state are as follows:
Deeds of Trust are foreclosed non-judicially. Local counsel advises that a foreclosure can be brought in the name of MERS. The foreclosure is filed and placed on the docket of the applicable circuit court with the same required information except that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) will be the named as the foreclosing entity instead of the servicer.
Employees of the servicer will be certifying officers of MERS. This means they are authorized to sign any necessary documents, such as the Substitution of Trustee, as an officer of MERS. The certifying officer is granted this power by a corporate resolution of MERS. In other words, the same individual that signs the documents for the servicer will continue to sign the documents, but now as an officer of MERS.
The agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae) require a blank endorsement of the promissory note when the seller/servicer sells a mortgage loan to them. Therefore, the note should remain endorsed in blank when the foreclosure is commenced in the name of MERS. However, we have been advised that there is sometimes an endorsement to the servicer in order to foreclose. We have not found this to be a legal requirement, and therefore, the agencies’ policies should be followed.
At the trustee sale, the certifying officer will instruct the trustee regarding the bid to be entered on behalf of MERS. If the bid is the highest bid, then before ratification, a motion to substitute interests will be filed so that the deed is issued directly to the investor. We have been advised that this is the procedure used when foreclosing in the name of the servicer. Because the MERS recommended procedure follows the
Version 1.1
November 1999
48
same procedure that is used when the servicer forecloses in its name, no additional taxes are incurred by foreclosing in the name of MERS.
Evictions are handled the same way they are handled when the servicer commences the foreclosure as the foreclosing entity. If it is an FHA-insured loan and an eviction is necessary, then the servicer can be substituted as the interested party. This way, the eviction can be brought in the name of the servicer. Once the eviction is completed, then the servicer can issue a deed to HUD. Again, you should follow the same procedures you follow when foreclosing in the name of the servicer.
If the debtor declares bankruptcy, the proof of claim should be filed jointly in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and the servicer. It is advised to file in both names in order to disclose to the court the relationship of MERS and the servicer. The address to be used is the servicer’s address so that all trustee payments go directly to the servicer, not to MERS. The Motion for Relief from Stay may be filed either solely in the name of MERS or jointly with the servicer. If MERS is the foreclosing entity, then it is MERS that needs the relief from the bankruptcy.
Version 1.1
November 1999
49
MERS RECOMMENDED FORECLOSURE PROCEDURE
FOR MASSACHUSETTS
Foreclosing a loan in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is something new in the foreclosure arena. However, when the role of MERS is examined, it becomes clear that MERS stands in the same position to foreclose as the servicer. MERS, like the servicer, will be the record mortgage holder. It is the mortgage or deed of trust that gives MERS the authority to foreclose.
To help make a smooth transition from foreclosing loans in the name of the servicer to foreclosing loans in the name of MERS, we have developed state by state recommended guidelines to follow. These guidelines were developed in conjunction with experienced foreclosure counsel in your state. We have been able to keep the MERS recommended procedures consistent with the existing foreclosure procedures. The goal of the recommended procedures is to avoid adding any extra steps or incurring any additional taxes or costs by foreclosing in the name of MERS instead of the servicer.
MERS will continually review the guidelines and, if necessary, will issue revisions. The recommended guidelines to follow in your state are as follows:
Mortgages are used and are foreclosed using the mortgage power of sale together with a Land Court Judgment. MERS local counsel advises that a loan can be foreclosed in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. Employees of the servicer will be certifying officers of MERS. This means they are authorized to sign any necessary documents as an officer of MERS. The certifying officer is granted this power by a corporate resolution of MERS. In other words, the same individual that signs the documents on behalf of the servicer will continue to sign the documents, but now as an officer of MERS.
The agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae) require a blank endorsement of the promissory note when the seller/servicer sells a mortgage loan to them. Therefore, the note should remain endorsed in blank when the foreclosure is commenced in the name of MERS. We have been advised that sometimes the Note is endorsed to the servicer prior to the foreclosure. However, we recommend that the agencies’ policies be followed.
MERS stands in the same position as the servicer to the extent that it is not the beneficial owner of the promissory note. An investor, typically a secondary market investor, will still be the ultimate owner of the promissory note.20
At the foreclosure auction, MERS can waive the requirement of a deposit as to the investor. This way, the servicer can enter a bid on behalf of the investor without the
20 Even though the servicer has physical custody of the note, custom in the mortgage industry is that the investor (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae or a private investor) owns the beneficial rights of the promissory note.
Version 1.1
November 1999
50
investor needing to produce any funds. If it is the highest bid, the foreclosure deed can be issued directly to the investor. We have been advised that this procedure is the same procedure used when Freddie Mac or Ginnie Mae are the investors. Because the MERS recommended procedure follows the same procedure that is used when the servicer forecloses in its name, no additional taxes are incurred by foreclosing in the name of MERS.
Evictions are handled the same way they are handled when the servicer commences the foreclosure as the foreclosing entity.
If the debtor declares bankruptcy, the proof of claim should be filed jointly in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and the servicer. It is advised to file in both names in order to disclose to the court the relationship of MERS and the servicer. The address to be used is the servicer’s address so that all trustee payments go directly to the servicer, not to MERS. The Motion for Relief from Stay may be filed either solely in the name of MERS or jointly with the servicer. If MERS is the foreclosing entity, then it is MERS that needs the relief from the bankruptcy.
Version 1.1
November 1999
51
MERS RECOMMENDED FORECLOSURE PROCEDURE
FOR MICHIGAN
Foreclosing a loan in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is something new in the foreclosure arena. However, when the role of MERS is examined, it becomes clear that MERS stands in the same position to foreclose as the servicer. MERS, like the servicer, will be the record mortgage holder. It is through the mortgage that MERS is given the authority to foreclose.
To help make a smooth transition from foreclosing loans in the name of the servicer to foreclosing loans in the name of MERS, we have developed state by state recommended guidelines to follow. These guidelines were developed in conjunction with experienced foreclosure counsel in your state. We have been able to keep the MERS recommended procedures consistent with the existing foreclosure procedures. The goal of the recommended procedures is to avoid adding any extra steps or incurring any additional taxes or costs by foreclosing in the name of MERS instead of the servicer.
MERS will continually review the guidelines and, if necessary, will issue revisions. The recommended guidelines to follow in your state are as follows:
Mortgages are foreclosed non-judicially usually by a power of sale contained in the mortgage. Local counsel advises that a foreclosure can be brought in the name of MERS. The foreclosure is advertised by publishing the notice for four (4) consecutive weeks. The attorney should follow the same procedure followed when foreclosing in the name of the servicer except that the foreclosing entity is Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS).
Employees of the servicer will be certifying officers of MERS. This means they are authorized to sign any necessary documents as an officer of MERS. The certifying officer is granted this power by a corporate resolution of MERS. In other words, the same individual that signs the documents for the servicer will continue to sign the documents, but now as an officer of MERS.
The agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae) require a blank endorsement of the promissory note when the seller/servicer sells a mortgage loan to them. The endorsement is to remain in blank even if the servicer commences foreclosure. Therefore, the note should remain endorsed in blank when the foreclosure is commenced in the name of MERS. However, we have been advised that sometimes there is an endorsement of the promissory notes to the servicer to foreclose. However, we recommend that the agencies’ policies be followed. We have not found an endorsement to the foreclosure entity to be a legal requirement, and therefore, the note should not be endorsed to MERS prior to the foreclosure.
At the auction, the certifying officer will instruct the foreclosing attorney regarding the bid to be entered on behalf of MERS. If the bid is the highest bid, then a deed may be issued to MERS. However, when the role of MERS, the servicer and the
Version 1.1
November 1999
52
investor is explained and understood, the servicer may be allowed to bid on its own behalf without having to produce any funds at the sale. This would be the preferred method to use if at all possible. This way, the deed is executed directly to the servicer. If this is not possible, and MERS must take title, then title should be held by MERS for as short of time as possible. A subsequent deed from MERS to the investor should be executed immediately so that MERS remains in the chain of title only for an instant. We have been advised that the current practice used when foreclosing in the name of the servicer, is for the servicer to take title and then execute a subsequent deed to the investor. Because the MERS recommended procedure follows the same procedure that is used when the servicer forecloses in its name, no additional taxes are incurred by foreclosing in the name of MERS.
Evictions are handled the same way they are handled when the servicer commences the foreclosure as the foreclosing entity.
If the debtor declares bankruptcy, the proof of claim should be filed jointly in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and the servicer. It is advised to file in both names in order to disclose to the court the relationship of MERS and the servicer. The address to be used is the servicer’s address so that all trustee payments go directly to the servicer, not to MERS. The Motion for Relief from Stay may be filed either solely in the name of MERS or jointly with the servicer. If MERS is the foreclosing entity, then it is MERS that needs the relief from the bankruptcy.
Version 1.1
November 1999
53
MERS RECOMMENDED FORECLOSURE PROCEDURE
FOR MINNESOTA
Foreclosing a loan in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is something new in the foreclosure arena. However, when the role of MERS is examined, it becomes clear that MERS stands in the same position to foreclose as the servicer. MERS, like the servicer, will be the record mortgage holder. It is the mortgage or deed of trust that gives MERS the authority to foreclose.
To help make a smooth transition from foreclosing loans in the name of the servicer to foreclosing loans in the name of MERS, we have developed state by state recommended guidelines to follow. These guidelines were developed in conjunction with experienced foreclosure counsel in your state. We have been able to keep the MERS recommended procedures consistent with the existing foreclosure procedures. The goal of the recommended procedures is to avoid adding any extra steps or incurring any additional taxes or costs by foreclosing in the name of MERS instead of the servicer.
MERS will continually review the guidelines and, if necessary, will issue revisions. The recommended guidelines to follow in your state are as follows:
Mortgages are used and are typically foreclosed non-judicially. MERS local counsel advises that a loan can be foreclosed in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. Employees of the servicer will be certifying officers of MERS. This means they are authorized to sign any necessary documents, such as the power of attorney to foreclose the mortgage, as an officer of MERS. The certifying officer is granted this power by a corporate resolution of MERS. In other words, the same individual that currently sign the documents for the servicer will continue to sign the documents, but now as an officer of MERS.
The agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae) require a blank endorsement of the promissory note when the seller/servicer sells a mortgage loan to them. Therefore, the note should remain endorsed in blank when the foreclosure is commenced in the name of MERS. We have been advised that sometimes there is an endorsement of the note to the servicer prior to foreclosure. However, we recommend that the agencies’ policies be followed.
At the foreclosure sale, the certifying officer will instruct the foreclosing attorney to enter a bid on behalf of MERS. A sheriff’s certificate is issued to the highest bidder. If MERS is the highest bidder, then the Sheriff’s certificate will be issued to MERS. The sheriff’s certificate operates as the conveyance of title. The certificate is executed and recorded during the redemption period. At the end of the redemption period, a deed will be issued from MERS to the investor.21 However, not every
21 During the redemption period, MERS will be considered to be titleholder. However, at the end of the redemption period, a deed to the investor should be executed as soon as possible so that MERS remains in the chain of title for as short a time as possible.
Version 1.1
November 1999
54
foreclosure counsel follows this procedure currently when foreclosing mortgage loans in the name of the servicer. If your current practice is to assign the sheriff’s certificate to the investor, then this is also an acceptable option.22
Evictions are handled the same way they are handled when the servicer commences the foreclosure as the foreclosing entity. If it is an FHA-insured loan and an eviction is necessary, then the eviction can be brought in the name of MERS if MERS is the sheriff’s certificate holder. However, if you use the option of assigning the sheriff’s certificate, then the certificate is assigned to the servicer instead of to HUD. This way, the servicer will proceed with the eviction the same way it would if the foreclosure were filed in its own name.
If the debtor declares bankruptcy, the proof of claim should be filed jointly in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and the servicer. It is advised to file in both names in order to disclose to the court the relationship of MERS and the servicer. The address to be used is the servicer’s address so that all trustee payments go directly to the servicer. The Motion for Relief from Stay may be filed either solely in the name of MERS or jointly with the servicer. If MERS is the foreclosing entity, then it is MERS that needs the relief from the bankruptcy.
22 The difference between the two options is that some counsels prefer a one-deed process implementing an assignment of the sheriff’s certificate to the investor. Other counsels use a two-deed process with the servicer first taking title, and then executing a subsequent deed to the investor. Counsel should continue to follow the instructions given to them by the servicer of the mortgage loan.
Version 1.1
November 1999
55
MERS RECOMMENDED FORECLOSURE PROCEDURE
FOR MISSISSIPPI
Foreclosing a loan in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is something new in the foreclosure arena. However, when the role of MERS is examined, it becomes clear that MERS stands in the same position to foreclose as the servicer. MERS, like the servicer, will be the record mortgage holder. It is through the mortgage or deed of trust that MERS is given the authority to foreclose.
To help make a smooth transition from foreclosing loans in the name of the servicer to foreclosing loans in the name of MERS, we have developed state by state recommended guidelines to follow. These guidelines were developed in conjunction with experienced foreclosure counsel in your state. We have been able to keep the MERS recommended procedures consistent with the existing foreclosure procedures. The goal of the recommended procedures is to avoid adding any extra steps or incurring any additional taxes or costs by foreclosing in the name of MERS instead of the servicer.
MERS will continually review the guidelines and, if necessary, will issue revisions. The recommended guidelines to follow in your state are as follows:
Deeds of Trust are foreclosed non-judicially. Local counsel advises that a foreclosure can be brought in the name of MERS. The foreclosure is advertised with the same required information except that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) will be named as the foreclosing entity instead of the servicer.
Employees of the servicer will be certifying officers of MERS. This means they are authorized to sign any necessary documents, such as the Deed of Appointment substituting Trustees, as an officer of MERS. The certifying officer is granted this power by a corporate resolution of MERS. In other words, the same individual that signs the documents on behalf of the servicer will continue to sign the documents, but now as an officer of MERS.
The agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae) require a blank endorsement of the promissory note when the seller/servicer sells a mortgage loan to them. Therefore, the note should remain endorsed in blank when the foreclosure is commenced in the name of MERS. We have been advised that sometimes there is a blank note endorsement to the servicer prior to foreclosure. We have not found this to be a legal requirement, and therefore, the note should not be endorsed to MERS prior to the foreclosure.
At the trustee sale, the certifying officer will instruct the trustee regarding the bid to be entered on behalf of MERS. If the bid is the highest bid, then MERS can assign the bid to the investor. This assignment is simply a paragraph incorporated in the substitution of trustee document authorizing the substituted trustee to convey the property directly to the investor in the Substituted Trustee’s Deed. We have been
Version 1.1
November 1999
56
advised that this procedure is the same procedure used when foreclosing in the name of the servicer. Because the MERS recommended procedure follows the same procedure that is used when the servicer forecloses in its name, no additional taxes are incurred by foreclosing in the name of MERS.
Evictions are handled the same way they are handled when the servicer commences the foreclosure as the foreclosing entity. If it is an FHA-insured loan and an eviction is necessary, then the servicer can be assigned the bid. This way, the eviction can be brought in the name of the servicer. Once the eviction is completed, then the servicer can issue a deed to HUD. Again, you should follow the same procedures you follow when foreclosing in the name of the servicer.
If the debtor declares bankruptcy, the proof of claim should be filed jointly in the name of MERS and the servicer. It is advised to file in both names in order to disclose to the court the relationship of MERS and the servicer. The address to be used is the servicer’s address so that all trustee payments go directly to the servicer, not to MERS. The Motion for Relief from Stay may be filed either solely in the name of MERS or jointly with the servicer. If MERS is the foreclosing entity, then it is MERS that needs the relief from the bankruptcy.
Version 1.1
November 1999
57
MERS RECOMMENDED FORECLOSURE PROCEDURE
FOR MISSOURI
Foreclosing a loan in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is something new in the foreclosure arena. However, when the role of MERS is examined, it becomes clear that MERS stands in the same position to foreclose as the servicer. MERS, like the servicer, will be the record mortgage holder. It is through the deed of trust that MERS is given the authority to foreclose.
To help make a smooth transition from foreclosing loans in the name of the servicer to foreclosing loans in the name of MERS, we have developed state by state recommended guidelines to follow. These guidelines were developed in conjunction with experienced foreclosure counsel in your state. We have been able to keep the MERS recommended procedures consistent with the existing foreclosure procedures. The goal of the recommended procedures is to avoid adding any extra steps or incurring any additional taxes or costs by foreclosing in the name of MERS instead of the servicer.
MERS will continually review the guidelines and, if necessary, will issue revisions. The recommended guidelines to follow in your state are as follows:
Deeds of Trust are foreclosed non-judicially under a power of sale. Local counsel advises that a foreclosure can be brought in the name of MERS. A notice of sale is published and the borrower is notified along with all parties entitled to notice under state laws. A sale is then held. The same requirements continue to be followed except that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) will be named as the foreclosing entity instead of the servicer.
Employees of the servicer will be certifying officers of MERS. This means they are authorized to sign any necessary documents, such as the Substitution of Trustee, as an officer of MERS. The certifying officer is granted this power by a corporate resolution of MERS. In other words, the same individual that signs the documents for the servicer will continue to sign the documents, but now as an officer of MERS.
The agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae) require that the promissory note be endorsed in blank when the seller/servicer sells a mortgage loan to them. Therefore, the note should remain endorsed in blank when the foreclosure is commenced. We have been advised that sometimes there is an endorsement of the note to the servicer prior to the foreclosure. However, we recommend that the agencies’ requirements be followed.
At the trustee sale, the certifying officer will instruct the trustee by a written bid letter that the bid is being assigned to the investor and that title should vest with the investor. We have been advised that this procedure is the same procedure used when foreclosing in the name of the servicer. Therefore, no additional fees are incurred by foreclosing in the name of MERS.
Version 1.1
November 1999
58
Evictions are handled the same way they are handled when the servicer commences the foreclosure as the foreclosing entity. If it is an FHA-insured loan and an eviction is necessary, then the servicer can be the assignee of the bid. This way, the eviction can be brought in the name of the servicer. Once the eviction is completed, then the servicer can issue a deed to HUD. Again, you should follow the same procedures you follow when foreclosing in the name of the servicer.
If the debtor declares bankruptcy, the proof of claim should be filed jointly in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and the servicer. It is advised to file in both names in order to disclose to the court the relationship of MERS and the servicer. The address to be used is the servicer’s address so that all trustee payments go directly to the servicer, not to MERS. The Motion for Relief from Stay may be filed either solely in the name of MERS or jointly with the servicer. If MERS is the foreclosing entity, then it is MERS that needs the relief from the bankruptcy.
Version 1.1
November 1999
59
MERS RECOMMENDED FORECLOSURE PROCEDURE
FOR MONTANA
Foreclosing a loan in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is something new in the foreclosure arena. However, when the role of MERS is examined, it becomes clear that MERS stands in the same position to foreclose as the servicer. MERS, like the servicer, will be the record mortgage holder. It is through the mortgage or deed of trust that MERS is given the authority to foreclose.
To help make a smooth transition from foreclosing loans in the name of the servicer to foreclosing loans in the name of MERS, we have developed state by state recommended guidelines to follow. These guidelines were developed in conjunction with experienced foreclosure counsel in your state. We have been able to keep the MERS recommended procedures consistent with the existing foreclosure procedures. The goal of the recommended procedures is to avoid adding any extra steps or incurring any additional taxes or costs by foreclosing in the name of MERS instead of the servicer.
MERS will continually review the guidelines and, if necessary, will issue revisions. The recommended guidelines to follow in your state are as follows:
Deeds of Trust are foreclosed non-judicially. Local counsel advises that a foreclosure can be brought in the name of MERS. The Notice of Sale includes the same required information as when foreclosing in the name of the servicer except that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) will be named as the foreclosing entity instead of the servicer. The Notice of Sale is recorded in the county where the property is located and is published in a newspaper of general circulation.
Employees of the servicer will be certifying officers of MERS. This means they are authorized to sign any necessary documents, such as the Substitution of Trustee, as an officer of MERS. The certifying officer is granted this power by a corporate resolution of MERS. In other words, the same individual that signs the documents on behalf of the servicer will continue to sign the documents, but now as an officer of MERS.
The agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae) require a blank endorsement of the promissory note when the seller/servicer sells the loan to them. Therefore, the note should remain endorsed in blank when the foreclosure is commenced in the name of MERS.
At the trustee sale, the certifying officer will instruct the trustee regarding the bid to be entered on behalf of MERS. If the bid is the highest bid, then a trustee’s deed will be issued to MERS. Title should only remain with MERS for as short of time as possible. A certifying officer of MERS will subsequently execute a Grant Deed to the investor. We have been advised that this procedure is the same procedure used when foreclosing in the name of the servicer. Because the MERS recommended
Version 1.1
November 1999
60
procedure follows the same procedure that is used when the servicer forecloses in its name, no additional taxes are incurred by foreclosing in the name of MERS.
Evictions are handled the same way they are handled when the servicer commences the foreclosure as the foreclosing entity.
If the debtor declares bankruptcy, the proof of claim should be filed jointly in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and the servicer. It is advised to file in both names in order to disclose to the court the relationship of MERS and the servicer. The address to be used is the servicer’s address so that all trustee payments go directly to the servicer, not to MERS. The Motion for Relief from Stay may be filed either solely in the name of MERS or jointly with the servicer. If MERS is the foreclosing entity, then it is MERS that needs the relief from the bankruptcy.
Version 1.1
November 1999
61
MERS RECOMMENDED FORECLOSURE PROCEDURE
FOR NEBRASKA
Foreclosing a loan in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is something new in the foreclosure arena. However, when the role of MERS is examined, it becomes clear that MERS stands in the same position to foreclose as the servicer. MERS, like the servicer, will be the record mortgage holder. It is through the mortgage or deed of trust that MERS is given the authority to foreclose.
To help make a smooth transition from foreclosing loans in the name of the servicer to foreclosing loans in the name of MERS, we have developed state by state recommended guidelines to follow. These guidelines were developed in conjunction with experienced foreclosure counsel in your state. We have been able to keep the MERS recommended procedures consistent with the existing foreclosure procedures. The goal of the recommended procedures is to avoid adding any extra steps or incurring any additional taxes or costs by foreclosing in the name of MERS instead of the servicer.
MERS will continually review the guidelines and, if necessary, will issue revisions. The recommended guidelines to follow in your state are as follows:
If a mortgage is used, it is foreclosed judicially. If a deed of trust is used, it can be foreclosed non-judicially under power of sale. Regardless of the type of security instrument used, MERS local counsel advises that a loan can be foreclosed in the name of MERS.
In a judicial foreclosure, when MERS has been assigned the mortgage, the caption of the complaint should state Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as the plaintiff. However, this changes slightly if MERS is the original mortgagee of record, meaning that MERS is named on the mortgage in a nominee capacity for the originating lender. The caption should then state Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as nominee for [insert name of the current servicer].23 The key is how MERS is named as the mortgagee of record.
The body of the complaint should be the same as when foreclosing in the name of the servicer. However, it is advised that a paragraph be inserted that explains that the servicer is the entity that is servicing the loan. MERS stands in the same shoes as the servicer to the extent that it is not the beneficial owner of the promissory note. An investor, typically a secondary market investor, will still be the ultimate owner of the promissory note.
In a non-judicial foreclosure, a notice of default is filed and recorded with the register of deeds in the county in which the property is located. The same procedures that are followed when foreclosing in the name of the servicer should continue to be followed except that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. will be named as the foreclosing entity.
Version 1.1
November 1999
62
23 We have been advised that the named plaintiff in the foreclosure action should be both the record holder of the mortgage and the owner and holder of the promissory note. This is typically considered to be the servicer because if the promissory note is endorsed in blank and the servicer has physical custody of the note, the servicer will technically be the note holder as well as the record mortgage holder. By virtue of having its employees become certifying officers of MERS, there can be an in-house transfer of possession of the note so that MERS is considered the note holder for purposes of foreclosing the loan. Therefore, MERS is both the mortgage holder and the note holder as nominee for the current servicer.
The agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae) require a blank endorsement of the promissory note when the seller/servicer sells a mortgage loan to them. Therefore, the note should remain endorsed in blank when the foreclosure is commenced in the name of MERS unless it is legally required to be endorsed to the foreclosing entity and not just the preferred method.24
Employees of the servicer will be certifying officers of MERS. This means they are authorized to sign any necessary documents as an officer of MERS. The certifying officer is granted this power by a corporate resolution of MERS. In other words, the same individual that signs the documents today on behalf of the servicer will continue to sign the documents, but now as an officer of MERS.
After a judgment to MERS is entered in a judicial foreclosure, a foreclosure sale is held. The certifying officer enters a bid on behalf of MERS. If it is the successful bid, then the bid will be assigned to the investor. The sheriff’s deed will be issued directly to the investor. This is the same method that is used when the servicer forecloses in its name. Because the MERS recommended procedure is the same as when the servicer forecloses in its name, no additional taxes are incurred by foreclosing in the name of MERS.
Evictions are handled the same way they are handled when the servicer commenced the foreclosure as the foreclosing entity. If it is an FHA-insured loan and an eviction is necessary, then the bid assignment is given to the servicer instead of to HUD. This way, the servicer will proceed with the eviction the same way it would if the foreclosure were filed in its own name.
If the debtor declares bankruptcy, the proof of claim should be filed jointly in the name of MERS and the servicer. It is advised to file in both names in order to disclose to the court the relationship between MERS and the servicer. The address to be used is the servicer’s address so that all trustee payments go directly to the servicer, not to MERS. The Motion for Relief from Stay may be filed either solely in the name of MERS or jointly with the servicer. If MERS is the foreclosing entity, then it is MERS that needs the relief from the bankruptcy.
24 Even though the servicer has physical custody of the note, custom in the mortgage industry is that the investor (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae or a private investor) owns the beneficial rights to the promissory note.
Version 1.1
November 1999
63
MERS RECOMMENDED FORECLOSURE PROCEDURE
FOR NEVADA
Foreclosing a loan in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is something new in the foreclosure arena. However, when the role of MERS is examined, it becomes clear that MERS stands in the same position to foreclose as the servicer. MERS, like the servicer, will be the record mortgage holder. It is the deed of trust that gives MERS the authority to foreclose.
To help make a smooth transition from foreclosing loans in the name of the servicer to foreclosing loans in the name of MERS, we have developed state by state recommended guidelines to follow. These guidelines were developed in conjunction with experienced foreclosure counsel in your state. We have been able to keep the MERS recommended procedures consistent with the existing foreclosure procedures. The goal of the recommended procedures is to avoid adding any extra steps or incurring any additional taxes or costs by foreclosing in the name of MERS instead of the servicer.
MERS will continually review the guidelines and, if necessary, will issue revisions. The recommended guidelines to follow in your state are as follows:
Deeds of Trust are used and are generally foreclosed non-judicially pursuant to a power of sale. Local counsel advises that a foreclosure can be brought in the name of MERS. It is important to note that the same procedures and state requirements that are required to be followed when foreclosing in the servicer’s name must still be followed when foreclosing in the name of MERS. The Trustee must still record the Notice of Default and Election to Sell the Property. After the expiration of the three-month period, the Notice of Trustee’s Sale is filed and published the same way it is when foreclosing in the name of the servicer except that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) will be named as the foreclosing entity.
Employees of the servicer will be certifying officers of MERS. This means they are authorized to sign any necessary documents, such as the Substitution of Trustee, as an officer of MERS. The certifying officer is granted this power by a corporate resolution of MERS. In other words, the same individual that signs the documents for the servicer will continue to sign the documents, but now as an officer of MERS. The substituted trustee is typically the foreclosing attorney.
The agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae) require a blank endorsement of the promissory note when the seller/servicer sells a mortgage loan to them. The note should remain endorsed in blank when the servicer commences the foreclosure. Therefore, the note should remain endorsed in blank when the foreclosure is commenced in the name of MERS.
At the trustee sale, the certifying officer will instruct the trustee regarding the bid to be entered on behalf of MERS for the investor. This is the same process that is used
Version 1.1
November 1999
64
when foreclosing in the servicer’s name. If it is the successful bid, then the trustee will be instructed to execute the Trustee’s Deed directly to the investor. Therefore, the MERS recommended procedure is the same as the current practice of bidding on behalf of the investor so that the Trustee’s Deed is issued directly to the investor. Because the MERS recommended procedure follows the same procedure that is used when the servicer forecloses in its name, no additional recording or transfer taxes are incurred by foreclosing in the name of MERS. Furthermore, there will not be a transfer tax when the trustee’s deed is issued directly to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, VA or HUD.
Evictions are handled the same way they are handled when the servicer commences the foreclosure as the foreclosing entity. If it is an FHA-insured loan, then the deed is not recorded to the investor until after the eviction is completed. The eviction is conducted the same way it is conducted when the foreclosure is brought in the name of the servicer.
If the debtor declares bankruptcy, the proof of claim should be filed jointly in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and the servicer. It is advised to file in both names in order to disclose to the court the relationship of MERS and the servicer. The address to be used is the servicer’s address so that all trustee payments go directly to the servicer, not to MERS. The Motion for Relief from Stay may be filed either solely in the name of MERS or jointly with the servicer. If MERS is the foreclosing entity, then it is MERS that needs the relief from the bankruptcy.
Version 1.1
November 1999
65
MERS RECOMMENDED FORECLOSURE PROCEDURE
FOR NEW HAMPSHIRE
Foreclosing a loan in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) is something new in the foreclosure arena. However, when the role of MERS is examined, it becomes clear that MERS stands in the same position to foreclose as the servicer. MERS, like the servicer, will be record mortgage holder. It is the mortgage or deed of trust that gives MERS the authority to foreclose.
To help make a smooth transition from foreclosing loans in the name of the servicer to foreclosing loans in the name of MERS, we have developed state by state recommended guidelines to follow. These guidelines were developed in conjunction with experienced foreclosure counsel in your state. We have been able to keep the MERS recommended procedures consistent with the existing foreclosure procedures. The goal of the recommended procedures is to avoid adding any extra steps or incurring any additional taxes or costs by foreclosing in the name of MERS instead of the servicer.
MERS will continually review the guidelines and, if necessary, will issue revisions. The recommended guidelines to follow in your state are as follows:
Mortgages are used and are generally foreclosed non-judicially under a power of sale in the security instrument. Local counsel advises that a foreclosure can be brought in the name of MERS.25 The Notice of Sales must be published with all required information except that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) will be named as the foreclosing entity instead of the servicer.
Employees of the servicer will be certifying officers of MERS. This means they are authorized to sign any necessary documents as an officer of MERS. The certifying officer is granted this power by a corporate resolution of MERS. In other words, the same individual that signs the documents for the servicer will continue to sign the documents, but now as an officer of MERS.
The agencies’ (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae) require a blank endorsement of the promissory note when the seller/servicer sells a mortgage loan to them. Therefore, the note should remain endorsed in blank when the foreclosure is commenced in the name of MERS.
At the foreclosure auction, the certifying officer will instruct the foreclosing attorney regarding the bid to be entered on behalf of MERS. If the bid is the highest bid, MERS will assign the bid to the investor so that the foreclosure deed is issued directly to the investor. We have been advised that the current foreclosure procedure is a one-deed process with the investor taking title. Therefore, the MERS
25 Please Note: Fannie Mae’s foreclosure regulations require an assignment from MERS to Fannie Mae in New Hampshire. This means that Fannie Mae will be the foreclosing entity. This is the same requirement that exists when the servicer is the record mortgage holder.
Version 1.1
November 1999
66
recommended procedure is same the as the current practice with an assignment of the bid to the investor. Therefore, no additional taxes are incurred by foreclosing in the name of MERS in place of the servicer.
Evictions are handled the same way they are handled when the servicer commences the foreclosure as the foreclosing entity. If it is an FHA-insured loan and an eviction is necessary, then the servicer may be assigned the bid so that the servicer is the grantee of the foreclosure deed. This way, the servicer is able to commence the eviction. The servicer will proceed with the eviction the same way it would if the foreclosure were filed in its own name. After the eviction is completed, the servicer will then issue a deed to HUD.
If the debtor declares bankruptcy, the proof of claim should be filed jointly in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and the servicer. It is advised to file in both names in order to disclose to the court the relationship of MERS and the servicer. The address to be used is the servicer’s address so that all trustee payments go directly to the servicer, not to MERS. The Motion for Relief from Stay may be filed either solely in the name of MERS or jointly with the servicer. If MERS is the foreclosing entity, then it is MERS that needs the relief from the bankruptcy.
Version 1.1
November 1999
67
MERS RECOMMENDED FORECLOSURE PROCEDURE
FOR NEW JERSEY
Foreclosing a loan in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is something new in the foreclosure arena. However, when the role of MERS is examined, it becomes clear that MERS stands in the same position to foreclose as the servicer. MERS, like the servicer, will be the record mortgage holder. It is through the mortgage or deed of trust that MERS is given the authority to foreclose.
To help make a smooth transition from foreclosing loans in the name of the servicer to foreclosing loans in the name of MERS, we have developed state by state recommended guidelines to follow. These guidelines were developed in conjunction with experienced foreclosure counsel in your state. We have been able to keep the MERS recommended procedures consistent with the existing foreclosure procedures. The goal of the recommended procedures is to avoid adding any extra steps or incurring any additional taxes or costs by foreclosing in the name of MERS instead of the servicer.
MERS will continually review the guidelines and, if necessary, will issue revisions. The recommended guidelines to follow in your state are as follows:
Mortgages are typically used and are foreclosed judicially. MERS local counsel advises that a loan can be foreclosed in the name of MERS. When MERS has been assigned the mortgage, the caption of the complaint should state Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as the plaintiff. However, this changes slightly if MERS is the original mortgagee of record, meaning that MERS is named on the mortgage in a nominee capacity for the originating lender. The caption should then state Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as nominee for [insert name of the current servicer]. The key is how MERS become the mortgage holder.
The body of the complaint should be the same as when foreclosing in the name of the servicer. MERS stands in the same shoes as the servicer to the extent that it is not the beneficial owner of the promissory note. An investor, typically a secondary market investor, will still be the ultimate owner of the promissory note.26
The agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae) require a blank endorsement of the promissory note when the seller/servicer sells a mortgage loan to them. Therefore, the note should remain endorsed in blank when the foreclosure is commenced in the name of MERS. We have been advised that sometimes there is an endorsement of the note to the servicer prior to the foreclosure. However, we recommend following the agencies’ policies.
26 If the promissory note is endorsed in blank and the servicer has physical custody of the note, the servicer will technically be the note holder as well as the record mortgage holder. By virtue of having the servicer’s employees be certifying officers of MERS, there can be an in-house transfer of possession of the note so that MERS is considered the note holder for purposes of foreclosing the loan.
Version 1.1
November 1999
68
Employees of the servicer will be certifying officers of MERS. This means they are authorized to sign any necessary documents as an officer of MERS. The certifying officer is granted this power by a corporate resolution of MERS. In other words, the same individual that signs the documents for the servicer will continue to sign the documents, but now as an officer of MERS.
After a judgment to MERS is entered, a sheriff’s sale is held. The certifying officer will instruct the foreclosing attorney as to the bid to be entered on behalf of MERS. If it is the highest bid, then the sheriff would be instructed that MERS has assigned its bid to the investor. This is the same method that is used when the servicer forecloses in its name. The sheriff would issue a sheriff’s deed directly to the investor. Local counsel advises that only VA and HUD are exempt from transfer taxes on the sheriff’s deed. Because the MERS recommended procedure follows the same procedure that is used when the servicer forecloses in its name, no additional taxes are incurred by foreclosing in the name of MERS.
Evictions are handled the same way they are handled when the servicer commences the foreclosure as the foreclosing entity. If it is an FHA-insured loan and an eviction is necessary, then the bid assignment is given to the servicer instead of to HUD. This way, the servicer will proceed with the eviction the same way it would if the foreclosure were filed in its own name.
If the debtor declares bankruptcy, the proof of claim should be filed jointly in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and the servicer. It is advised to file in both names in order to disclose to the court the relationship of MERS and the servicer. The address to be used is the servicer’s address so that all trustee payments go directly to the servicer, not to MERS. The Motion for Relief from Stay may be filed either solely in the name of MERS or jointly with the servicer. If MERS is the foreclosing entity, then it is MERS that needs the relief from the bankruptcy.
Version 1.1
November 1999
69
MERS RECOMMENDED FORECLOSURE PROCEDURE
FOR NEW MEXICO
Foreclosing a loan in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is something new in the foreclosure arena. However, when the role of MERS is examined, it becomes clear that MERS stands in the same position to foreclose as the servicer. MERS, like the servicer, will be the record mortgage holder. It is the mortgage or deed of trust that gives MERS the authority to foreclose.
To help make a smooth transition from foreclosing loans in the name of the servicer to foreclosing loans in the name of MERS, we have developed state by state recommended guidelines to follow. These guidelines were developed with experienced foreclosure counsel in your state. We have been able to keep the MERS recommended procedures consistent with the existing foreclosure procedures. The goal of the recommended procedures is to avoid adding any extra steps or incurring any additional taxes or costs by foreclosing in the name of MERS instead of the servicer.
MERS will continually review the guidelines and, if necessary, will issue revisions. The recommended guidelines to follow in your state are as follows:
Mortgages are typically used and are foreclosed judicially. MERS local counsel advises that a loan can be foreclosed in the name of MERS. When MERS has been assigned the mortgage, the caption of the complaint should state Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as the plaintiff. However, this changes slightly if MERS is the original mortgagee of record, meaning that MERS is named on the mortgage in a nominee capacity for the originating lender. The caption should then state Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as nominee for [insert name of the current servicer]. The key is how MERS is named as the mortgagee of record.
The body of the complaint should be the same as when foreclosing in the name of the servicer. MERS stands in the same position as the servicer to the extent that it is not the beneficial owner of the promissory note. An investor, typically a secondary market investor, will still be the ultimate owner of the promissory note.27
The agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae) require a blank endorsement of the promissory note when the seller/servicer sells a mortgage loan to them. Therefore, the note should remain endorsed in blank when the foreclosure is commenced in the name of MERS.28 We have not found it to be a requirement in New Mexico that the Note be endorsed to the foreclosing entity.
27 Even though the servicer has physical custody of the note, custom in the mortgage industry is that the investor (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae or a private investor) owns the beneficial rights of the promissory note.
28 If the promissory note is endorsed in blank and the servicer has physical custody of the note, the servicer will technically be the note holder as well as the record mortgage holder. By virtue of having the servicer’s employees be certifying officers of MERS, there can be an in-house transfer of possession of the note so that MERS is considered the note holder for purposes of foreclosing the loan.
Version 1.1
November 1999
70
Employees of the servicer will be certifying officers of MERS. This means they are authorized to sign any necessary documents as an officer of MERS. The certifying officer is granted this power by a corporate resolution from MERS. In other words, the same individual that signs the documents for the servicer will continue to sign the documents, but now as an officer of MERS.
After a foreclosure judgment to MERS is entered, a Notice of Sale is published. The certifying officer will instruct the attorney regarding the bid to be entered on behalf of MERS. After the sale, a Report of Special Master is filed and an Order approving Sale and Special Master’s Report is filed. If MERS bid is the highest bid, then the Special Master’s Deed is recorded conveying the title to MERS. The title should only be held by MERS momentarily. A second deed should be prepared as soon as possible conveying the property from MERS to the investor. This is the same method that is used when the servicer forecloses in its own name. Because the MERS recommended procedure follows the same procedure that is used when the servicer forecloses in its name, no additional recording or transfer taxes are incurred by foreclosing in the name of MERS.
Evictions are handled the same way they are handled when the servicer commences the foreclosure as the foreclosing entity.
If the debtor declares bankruptcy, the proof of claim should be filed jointly in the name of MERS and the servicer. It is advised to file in both names in order to disclose to the court the relationship of MERS and the servicer. The address to be used is the servicer’s address so that all trustee payments go directly to the servicer, not to MERS. The Motion for Relief from Stay may be filed either solely in the name of MERS or jointly with the servicer. If MERS is the foreclosing entity, then it is MERS that needs the relief from the bankruptcy.
Version 1.1
November 1999
71
MERS RECOMMENDED FORECLOSURE PROCEDURE
FOR NEW YORK
Foreclosing a loan in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is something new in the foreclosure arena. However, when the role of MERS is examined, it becomes clear that MERS stands in the same position to foreclose as the servicer. MERS, like the servicer, will be the record mortgage holder. It is the mortgage or deed of trust that gives MERS the authority to foreclose.
To help make a smooth transition from foreclosing loans in the name of the servicer to foreclosing loans in the name of MERS, we have developed state by state recommended guidelines to follow. These guidelines were developed in conjunction with experienced foreclosure counsel in your state. We have been able to keep the MERS recommended procedures consistent with the existing foreclosure procedures. The goal of the recommended procedures is to avoid adding any extra steps or incurring any additional taxes or costs by foreclosing in the name of MERS instead of the servicer.
MERS will continually review the guidelines and, if necessary, will issue revisions. The recommended guidelines to follow in your state are as follows:
Mortgages are typically used and are foreclosed judicially. When MERS has been assigned the mortgage, the caption of the complaint should state Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as the plaintiff. However, this changes slightly if MERS is the original mortgagee of record, meaning that MERS is named on the mortgage in a nominee capacity for the originating lender, its successors and assigns. In that case, the caption should then state Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as nominee for [insert name of the current servicer]. The key is how did MERS become the mortgagee of record.
The body of the complaint should be the same as when foreclosing in the name of the servicer. MERS stands in the same shoes as the servicer to the extent that it is not the beneficial owner of the promissory note. An investor, typically a secondary market investor, will still be the ultimate owner of the promissory note.
The agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae) require a blank endorsement of the promissory note when the seller/servicer sells a mortgage loan to them. Therefore, the note should remain endorsed in blank when the foreclosure is commenced in the name of MERS. We have been advised that sometimes there is an endorsement of the note to the servicer prior to foreclosure. However, we recommend that the agencies’ policies be followed.
Employees of the servicer will be authorized to sign any necessary documents as a certifying officer of MERS. The certifying officer is granted this power by a corporate resolution of MERS. This typically will be the same individual that signs the documents for the servicer, but now will be signing as an officer of MERS.
Version 1.1
November 1999
72
A foreclosure judgment to MERS would be entered. At the foreclosure sale the certifying officer will instruct the foreclosing attorney regarding the bid to be entered on behalf of MERS. If it is the successful bid, MERS will assign the bid to the investor. The assignment of the bid is a simple one-sentence reference that is submitted to the referee that states MERS assigns the bid to investor. The referee’s deed would be directly issued to the investor. This is the same method that is used when the servicer forecloses in its name. Because the MERS recommended procedure follows the same procedure that is used when the servicer forecloses in its name, no additional taxes are incurred by foreclosing in the name of MERS.
Evictions are handled the same way they are handled when the servicer commences the foreclosure as the foreclosing entity. If it is an FHA-insured loan and an eviction is necessary, then the bid assignment is given to the servicer instead of to HUD. This way, the servicer will proceed with the eviction the same way it would if the foreclosure were filed in its own name.
If the debtor declares bankruptcy, the proof of claim should be filed jointly in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and the servicer. It is advised to file in both names in order to disclose to the court the relationship of MERS and the servicer. The address to be used is for the servicer so that all trustee payments go directly to the servicer, not to MERS. The Motion for Relief from Stay may be filed either solely in the name of MERS or jointly with the servicer. If MERS is the foreclosing entity, then it is MERS that needs the relief from the bankruptcy.
Version 1.1
November 1999
73
MERS RECOMMENDED FORECLOSURE PROCEDURE
FOR NORTH CAROLINA
Foreclosing a loan in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is something new in the foreclosure arena. However, when the role of MERS is examined, it becomes clear that MERS stands in the same position to foreclose as the servicer. MERS, like the servicer, will be the record mortgage holder. It is through the deed of trust that MERS is given the authority to foreclose.
To help make a smooth transition from foreclosing loans in the name of the servicer to foreclosing loans in the name of MERS, we have developed state by state recommended guidelines to follow. These guidelines were developed in conjunction with experienced foreclosure counsel in your state. We have been able to keep the MERS recommended procedures consistent with the existing foreclosure procedures. The goal of the recommended procedures is to avoid adding any extra steps or incurring any additional taxes or costs by foreclosing in the name of MERS instead of the servicer.
MERS will continually review the guidelines and, if necessary, will issue revisions. The recommended guidelines to follow in your state are as follows:
Deeds of Trust are foreclosed non-judicially under power of sale. Local counsel advises that a foreclosure can be brought in the name of MERS. Notices are sent to all interested parties, and a hearing is scheduled with the Clerk of Superior Court. The same process followed when foreclosing in the name of the servicer continues to be followed except that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) will be named as the foreclosing entity instead of the servicer.
Employees of the servicer will be certifying officers of MERS. This means they are authorized to sign any necessary documents, such as the Substitution of Trustee, as an officer of MERS. The certifying officer is granted this power by a corporate resolution of MERS. In other words, the same individual that signs the documents on behalf of the servicer will continue to sign the documents, but now as an officer of MERS.
The agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae) require a blank endorsement of the promissory note when the seller/servicer sells a mortgage loan to them. Therefore, the note should remain endorsed in blank when the foreclosure is commenced in the name of MERS. However, we have been advised that sometimes there is an endorsement of the note to the servicer prior to the commencement of the foreclosure. We have not found this to be a legal requirement, and therefore, the agencies’ requirements should be followed.
At the trustee sale, the certifying officer will instruct the trustee regarding the bid to be entered on behalf of MERS. If the bid is the highest bid, then MERS will assign its bid to the investor. We have been advised that this procedure is the same Version 1.1
November 1999
74
procedure followed when foreclosing in the name of the servicer. Because it is the same procedure, no additional taxes are incurred by foreclosing in the name of MERS.
Evictions are handled the same way they are handled when the servicer commences the foreclosure as the foreclosing entity. If it is an FHA-insured loan and an eviction is necessary, then the bid can be assigned to the servicer. This way, the eviction can be brought in the name of the servicer. Once the eviction is completed, then the servicer can issue a deed to HUD. Again, you should follow the same procedures you follow when foreclosing in the name of the servicer.
If the debtor declares bankruptcy, the proof of claim should be filed jointly in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and the servicer. It is advised to file in both names in order to disclose to the court the relationship between MERS and the servicer. The address to be used is the servicer’s address so that all trustee payments go directly to the servicer, not to MERS. The Motion for Relief from Stay may be filed either solely in the name of MERS or jointly with the servicer. If MERS is the foreclosing entity, then it is MERS that needs the relief from the bankruptcy.
Version 1.1
November 1999
75
MERS RECOMMENDED FORECLOSURE PROCEDURE
FOR NORTH DAKOTA
Foreclosing a loan in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is something new in the foreclosure arena. However, when the role of MERS is examined, it becomes clear that MERS stands in the same position to foreclose as the servicer. MERS, like the servicer, will be the record mortgage holder. It is through this instrument that the authority is given to MERS to foreclose.
To help make a smooth transition from foreclosing loans in the name of the servicer to foreclosing loans in the name of MERS, we have developed state by state recommended guidelines to follow. These guidelines were developed in conjunction with experienced foreclosure counsel in your state. We have been able to keep the MERS recommended procedures consistent with the existing foreclosure procedures. The goal of the recommended procedures is to avoid adding any extra steps or incurring any additional taxes or costs by foreclosing in the name of MERS instead of the servicer.
MERS will continually review the guidelines and, if necessary, will issue revisions. The recommended guidelines to follow in your state are as follows:
Mortgages are typically used and are foreclosed judicially. MERS local counsel advises that a loan can be foreclosed in the name of MERS.29 When MERS has been assigned the mortgage, the caption of the complaint should state Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as the plaintiff. However, this changes slightly if MERS is the original mortgagee of record, meaning that MERS is named on the mortgage in a nominee capacity for the originating lender. The caption should then state Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as nominee for [insert name of the current servicer]. The key is how MERS is named as the mortgagee of record.
The body of the complaint should be the same as when foreclosing in the name of the servicer. However, it is advised that a paragraph be inserted that explains that the servicer is the entity that is servicing the loan. MERS stands in the same shoes as the servicer to the extent that it is not the beneficial owner of the promissory note. An investor, typically a secondary market investor, will still be the ultimate owner of the promissory note.30
The agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae) require a blank endorsement of the promissory note when the seller/servicer sells a mortgage loan to
29 We have been advised that the named plaintiff in the foreclosure action should be both the record holder of the mortgage and the holder of the promissory note. This is typically considered to be the servicer because if the promissory note is endorsed in blank and the servicer has physical custody of the note, the servicer will technically be the note holder as well as the record mortgage holder. By virtue of having the servicer’s employees be certifying officers of MERS, there can be an in-house transfer of possession of the note so that MERS is considered the note holder for purposes of foreclosing the loan.
Version 1.1
November 1999
76
30 Even though the servicer has physical custody of the note, custom in the mortgage industry is that the investor (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae or a private investor) owns the beneficial rights to the promissory note.
them. Therefore, the note should remain endorsed in blank when the foreclosure is commenced in the name of MERS unless it is legally required to be endorsed to the foreclosing entity and not just the preferred method. If it is required to endorse the promissory note to the foreclosing entity, then the note may need to be endorsed to MERS. However, we have not found it a requirement in North Dakota that the Note be endorsed to the foreclosing entity.
Employees of the servicer will be certifying officers of MERS. This means they are authorized to sign any necessary documents as an officer of MERS. The certifying officer is granted this power by a corporate resolution of MERS. In other words, the same individual that signs the documents today on behalf of the servicer will continue to sign the documents, but now as an officer of MERS.
After a judgment to MERS is entered, a sheriff’s sale is held. A bid is entered on behalf of MERS, and if the successful bid, then the certificate of sale can be issued to MERS. At the sale, only the party who conducted the foreclosure is entitled to “credit.” At this point, one of two options can be followed. One is to assign the certificate of sale to the servicer or the investor. This way, the sheriff’s deed will be issued directly to the assignee. The other is the sheriff’s deed can be issued to MERS, and a Grant Deed will be subsequently issued to the investor. The latter option is the same method that is used when the servicer forecloses in its name. Because the MERS recommended procedure follows the same procedure that is used when the servicer forecloses in its name, no additional taxes are incurred by foreclosing in the name of MERS.
Evictions are handled the same way they are handled when the servicer commences the foreclosure as the foreclosing entity.
If the debtor declares bankruptcy, the proof of claim should be filed jointly in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and the servicer. It is advised to file in both names in order to disclose to the court the relationship of MERS and the servicer. The address to be used is for the servicer so that all trustee payments go directly to the servicer, not to MERS. The Motion for Relief from Stay may be filed either solely in the name of MERS or jointly with the servicer. If MERS is the foreclosing entity, then it is MERS that needs the relief from the bankruptcy.
Version 1.1
November 1999
77
MERS RECOMMENDED FORECLOSURE PROCEDURE
FOR OHIO
Foreclosing a loan in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is something new in the foreclosure arena. However, when the role of MERS is examined, it becomes clear that MERS stands in the same position to foreclose as the servicer. MERS, like the servicer, will be the record mortgage holder. It is through the mortgage or deed of trust that MERS is given the authority to foreclose.
To help make a smooth transition from foreclosing loans in the name of the servicer to foreclosing loans in the name of MERS, we have developed state by state recommended guidelines to follow. These guidelines were developed in conjunction with experienced foreclosure counsel in your state. We have been able to keep the MERS recommended procedures consistent with the existing foreclosure procedures. The goal of the recommended procedures is to avoid adding any extra steps or incurring any additional taxes or costs by foreclosing in the name of MERS instead of the servicer.
MERS will continually review the guidelines and, if necessary, will issue revisions. The recommended guidelines to follow in your state are as follows:
Mortgages are used and are foreclosed judicially. MERS local counsel advises that a loan can be foreclosed in the name of MERS. The caption should state Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as the plaintiff. The body of the complaint should be the same as when foreclosing in the name of the servicer. MERS stands in the same shoes as the servicer to the extent that it is not the beneficial owner of the promissory note. An investor, typically a secondary market investor, will still be the ultimate owner of the promissory note.
The agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae) require a blank endorsement of the promissory note when the seller/servicer sells a mortgage loan to them. Therefore, the note should remain endorsed in blank when the foreclosure is commenced in the name of MERS. We have been advised that sometimes there is an endorsement of the note to the servicer prior to foreclosure. However, we recommend that the agencies’ policies be followed.
Employees of the servicer will be certifying officers of MERS. This means they are authorized to sign any necessary documents as an officer of MERS. The certifying officer is granted this power by a corporate resolution of MERS. In other words, the same individual that signs the documents for the servicer will continue to sign the documents, but now as an officer of MERS.
After a judgment to MERS is entered, a sheriff’s sale is held. The certifying officer will instruct the foreclosing attorney as to the bid to be entered on behalf of MERS. If it is the successful bid, then MERS will assign its bid to the investor. The deed will then be issued directly to the investor. This is the same method that is used
Version 1.1
November 1999
78
when the servicer forecloses in its name. Because the MERS recommended procedure follows the same procedure that is used when the servicer foreclosures in its name, no additional taxes are incurred by foreclosing in the name of MERS.
Evictions are handled the same way they are handled when the servicer commences the foreclosure as the foreclosing entity. If it is an FHA-insured loan and an eviction is necessary, then the bid assignment is given to the servicer instead of to HUD. This way, the servicer will proceed with the eviction the same way it would if the foreclosure were filed in its own name.
If the debtor declares bankruptcy, the proof of claim should be filed jointly in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and the servicer. It is advised to file in both names in order to disclose to the court the relationship of MERS and the servicer. The address to be used is the servicer’s address so that all trustee payments go directly to the servicer, not to MERS. The Motion for Relief from Stay may be filed either solely in the name of MERS or jointly with the servicer. If MERS is the foreclosing entity, then it is MERS that needs the relief from the bankruptcy.
Version 1.1
November 1999
79
MERS RECOMMENDED FORECLOSURE PROCEDURE
FOR OKLAHOMA
Foreclosing a loan in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is something new in the foreclosure arena. However, when the role of MERS is examined, it becomes clear that MERS stands in the same position to foreclose as the servicer. MERS, like the servicer, will be the record mortgage holder. It is through the mortgage or deed of trust that MERS is given the authority to foreclose.
To help make a smooth transition from foreclosing loans in the name of the servicer to foreclosing loans in the name of MERS, we have developed state by state recommended guidelines to follow. These guidelines were developed in conjunction with experienced foreclosure counsel in your state. We have been able to keep the MERS recommended procedures consistent with the existing foreclosure procedures. The goal of the recommended procedures is to avoid adding any extra steps or incurring any additional taxes or costs by foreclosing in the name of MERS instead of the servicer.
MERS will continually review the guidelines and, if necessary, will issue revisions. The recommended guidelines to follow in your state are as follows:
Mortgages are typically used and are foreclosed judicially. MERS local counsel advises that a loan can be foreclosed in the name of MERS, so long as MERS is the record mortgage holder and the holder of the promissory note (even if not the beneficial owner of the promissory note). The caption should reflect Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as the plaintiff. The body of the complaint should be the same as when foreclosing in the name of the servicer. MERS stands in the same shoes as the servicer to the extent that it is not the beneficial owner of the promissory note.31 An investor, typically a secondary market investor, will still be the beneficial owner of the promissory note.
The agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae) require a blank endorsement of the promissory note when the seller/servicer sells a mortgage loan to them.32 Therefore, the note should remain endorsed in blank when the foreclosure is commenced in the name of MERS. However, we have been advised that sometimes there is an endorsement of the note to the servicer prior to foreclosure. However, we recommend that the agencies’ policies be followed.
31 Even though the servicer has physical custody of the note, custom in the mortgage industry is that the investor (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae or a private investor) owns the beneficial rights to the promissory note.
32 If the promissory note is endorsed in blank and the servicer has physical custody of the note, the servicer will technically be the note holder as well as the record mortgage holder. By virtue of having the servicer’s employees be certifying officers of MERS, there can be an in-house transfer of possession of the note so that MERS is considered the note holder for purposes of foreclosing the loan.
Version 1.1
November 1999
80
Employees of the servicer will be certifying officers of MERS. This means they are authorized to sign any necessary documents as an officer of MERS. The certifying officer is granted this power by a corporate resolution of MERS. In other words, the same individual that signs the documents for the servicer will continue to sign the documents, but now as an officer of MERS.
After a judgment to MERS is entered, a Special Execution and Order of Sale is issued. The party instituting a foreclosure action must send a notice of the sheriff’s sale date to the borrower and all other persons that have a recorded interest or other known interest in the property that will be extinguished by the sale. This would include any junior lienholders, current owners or tenants and the holders of any other encumbrances on the property. The notice must be executed by the county sheriff and must contain a legal description of the property, as well as the date, time and place of sale. This notice must be sent at least 10 days prior to the date of sale. The attorney for the foreclosing party must execute and file an affidavit of compliance with these notice rules.
In addition, the party instituting a foreclosure action must publish notice of public sale for two successive weeks in the newspaper of the county in which the property is situated. The notice must also be executed by the sheriff and must state the names of persons having an interest in the property that will be extinguished by the sale. If the county does not have a newspaper, then a notice must be published on the court house, in 5 other public places in the county, as well as in any general circulation paper distributed in the county. If the county has a population of 110,000 as of the latest federal census, then the notice of sale must be published in a newspaper in the city or township in which the property is situated, or if no such paper exists, then the notice must be published in some newspaper published in the county. Okla. Stat. Tit. 12, section 764 (1995).
The sale is conducted by the county sheriff and must be held not less than 30 days after the date of the first publication or posting of the sale notice. Okla. Stat. Tit. 12, section 764 (1995). The sale is conducted through a public auction and the property is awarded to the highest bidder.
The certifying officer will instruct the foreclosing attorney to enter a bid on behalf of MERS. If it is the highest bid, then in the motion to confirm sale, MERS will request that the sheriff’s deed be issued to the investor. Upon the entering of the order confirming sale, the sheriff’s deed will be executed in favor of the investor. The MERS recommended procedures do not cause any additional taxes to be incurred.
Evictions are handled the same way they are handled when the servicer commences the foreclosure as the foreclosing entity.
If the debtor declares bankruptcy, the proof of claim should be filed jointly in the name of MERS and the servicer. It is advised to file in both names in order to
Version 1.1
November 1999
81
disclose to the court the relationship of MERS and the servicer. The address to be used is the servicer’s address so that all trustee payments go directly to the servicer. The Motion for Relief from Stay may be filed either solely in the name of MERS or jointly with the servicer. If MERS is the foreclosing entity, then it is MERS that needs the relief from the bankruptcy.
Version 1.1
November 1999
82
MERS RECOMMENDED FORECLOSURE PROCEDURE
FOR OREGON
Foreclosing a loan in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is something new in the foreclosure arena. However, when the role of MERS is examined, it becomes clear that MERS stands in the same position to foreclose as the servicer. MERS, like the servicer, will be the record mortgage holder. It is the mortgage or deed of trust that gives MERS the authority to foreclose.
To help make a smooth transition from foreclosing loans in the name of the servicer to foreclosing loans in the name of MERS, we have developed state by state recommended guidelines to follow. These guidelines were developed in conjunction with experienced foreclosure counsel in your state. We have been able to keep the MERS recommended procedures consistent with the existing foreclosure procedures. The goal of the recommended procedures is to avoid adding any extra steps or incurring any additional taxes or costs by foreclosing in the name of MERS instead of the servicer.
MERS will continually review the guidelines and, if necessary, will issue revisions. The recommended guidelines to follow in your state are as follows:
Deeds of Trust are used and are foreclosed non-judicially by conferring a power of sale on the trustee in the event of default by the borrower. MERS local counsel advises that a loan can be foreclosed in the name of MERS.
Employees of the servicer will be certifying officers of MERS. This means they are authorized to sign any necessary documents, such as the substitution of trustee, as an officer of MERS. The certifying officer is granted this power by a corporate resolution of MERS. In other words, the same individual that signs the documents for the servicer will continue to sign the documents, but now as an officer of MERS.
The only change to the foreclosure procedure is to name Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. in the foreclosure notices as the beneficiary instead of to name the servicer. At the trustee’s sale, a bid will be entered on behalf of MERS. The bid is entered the same way it is entered for the servicer when foreclosing in the servicer’s name. If the bid is the highest bid, then the trustee’s deed can be issued directly to the investor. The Trustee’s deed will identify the investor as the grantee under the trustee’s deed and will recite that MERS, as nominee, successfully bid for the property at the trustee’s sale. Because the MERS recommended procedure follows the same procedure that is used when the servicer forecloses in its name, no additional taxes are incurred by foreclosing in the name of MERS.
The agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae) require a blank endorsement of the promissory note when the seller/servicer sells a mortgage loan to them. Therefore, the note should remain endorsed in blank when the foreclosure is commenced in the name of MERS.
Version 1.1
November 1999
83
Evictions are handled the same way they are handled when the servicer commences the foreclosure as the foreclosing entity. If it is an FHA-insured loan and an eviction is necessary, then the bid assignment is given to the servicer instead of to HUD. This way, the servicer will proceed with the eviction the same way it would if the foreclosure were filed in its own name.
If the debtor declares bankruptcy, the proof of claim should be filed jointly in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and the servicer. It is advised to file in both names in order to disclose to the court the relationship of MERS and the servicer. The address to be used is the servicer’s address so that all trustee payments go directly to the servicer, not to MERS. The Motion for Relief from Stay may be filed either solely in the name of MERS or jointly with the servicer. If MERS is the foreclosing entity, then it is MERS that needs the relief from the bankruptcy.
Version 1.1
November 1999
84
MERS RECOMMENDED FORECLOSURE PROCEDURE
FOR PENNSYLVANIA
Foreclosing a loan in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is something new in the foreclosure arena. However, when the role of MERS is examined, it becomes clear that MERS stands in the same position to foreclose as the servicer. MERS will be the record mortgage holder. It is through the mortgage that MERS is given the authority to foreclose.
To help make a smooth transition from foreclosing loans in the name of the servicer or the investor to foreclosing loans in the name of MERS, we have developed state by state recommended guidelines to follow. These guidelines were developed in conjunction with experienced foreclosure counsel in your state. We have been able to keep the MERS recommended procedures consistent with the existing foreclosure procedures. The goal of the recommended procedures is to avoid adding any extra steps or incurring any additional taxes or costs by foreclosing in the name of MERS instead of the servicer.
MERS will continually review the guidelines and, if necessary, will issue revisions. The recommended guidelines to follow in your state are as follows:
Mortgages are typically used and are foreclosed judicially. The caption of the complaint should state Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as the plaintiff. The body of the complaint should be the same as when foreclosing in the name of the servicer or investor. A paragraph should be added that MERS, is or will be, the owner of legal title to the mortgage that is the subject of this action, and nominee for the [insert name of investor, or name of current servicer, if investor is Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac], which is the owner of the entire beneficial interest in the mortgage.
Employees of the servicer will be certifying officers of MERS. This means they are authorized to sign any necessary documents as an officer of MERS. The certifying officer is granted this power by a corporate resolution of MERS. In other words, the same individual that signs the documents for the servicer will continue to sign the documents, but now as an officer of MERS.
The agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae) require a blank endorsement of the promissory note when the seller/servicer sells a mortgage loan to them. Therefore, the note should remain endorsed in blank when the foreclosure is commenced in the name of MERS. We have been advised that sometimes there is an endorsement of the note to the servicer prior to foreclosure. However, we recommend that the agencies’ policies be followed.
After the foreclosure judgment is entered in favor of MERS, the sheriff’s sale is scheduled. The servicer provides bidding instructions to the foreclosure attorney. After the sale, assuming that the foreclosure attorney was the successful bidder, the
Version 1.1
November 1999
85
attorney instructs the sheriff, in writing, to assign the bid to the investor and to name the investor as grantee on the sheriff’s deed.33
The name of MERS must not appear on any post-sale documents, including sheriff’s deeds and complaints in ejectment. For FHA-insured loans that require evictions, the attorney must instruct the sheriff, in writing, to assign the bid to the investor, instead of to HUD, and to name the investor as grantee on the sheriff’s deed. The servicer, on behalf of the investor, proceeds with the eviction and deeds the property to HUD once the eviction is completed.
If the debtor declares bankruptcy, the proof of claim should be filed jointly in the name of MERS and the servicer. It is advised to file in both names in order to disclose to the court the relationship of MERS and the servicer. The address to be used is the servicer’s address so that all trustee payments go directly to the servicer, not to MERS. The Motion for Relief from Stay may be filed either solely in the name of MERS or jointly with the servicer. If MERS is the foreclosing entity, then it is MERS that needs the relief from the bankruptcy.
33 MERS local counsel has contacted and received a letter from the Department of Revenue of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that indicates the investor can use the foreclosing mortgagee transfer tax exemption by showing that MERS participated in the sheriff’s sale merely as an agent of the investor.
Version 1.1
November 1999
86
MERS RECOMMENDED FORECLOSURE PROCEDURE
FOR RHODE ISLAND
Foreclosing a loan in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is something new in the foreclosure arena. However, when the role of MERS is examined, it becomes clear that MERS stands in the same position to foreclose as the servicer. MERS, like the servicer, will be the record mortgage holder. It is the mortgage or deed of trust that gives MERS the authority to foreclose.
To help make a smooth transition from foreclosing loans in the name of the servicer to foreclosing loans in the name of MERS, we have developed state by state recommended guidelines to follow. These guidelines were developed in conjunction with experienced foreclosure counsel in your state. We have been able to keep the MERS recommended procedures consistent with the existing foreclosure procedures. The goal of the recommended procedures is to avoid adding any extra steps or incurring any additional taxes or costs by foreclosing in the name of MERS instead of the servicer.
MERS will continually review the guidelines and, if necessary, will issue revisions. The recommended guidelines to follow in your state are as follows:
Mortgages are used and are foreclosed non-judicially. MERS local counsel advises a loan can be foreclosed in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.34 The foreclosure is advertised with Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as the named foreclosing entity.
Employees of the servicer will be certifying officers of MERS. This means they are authorized to sign any necessary documents as an officer of MERS. The certifying officer is granted this power by a corporate resolution of MERS. In other words, the same individual that signs the documents on behalf of the servicer will continue to sign the documents, but now as an officer of MERS.
The agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae) require a blank endorsement of the promissory note when the seller/servicer sells a mortgage loan to them. Therefore, the note should remain endorsed in blank when the foreclosure is commenced in the name of MERS. We have been advised that sometimes there is an endorsement of the Note to the servicer prior to foreclosure. However, we recommend that the agencies’ policies be followed.
34 Please Note: Fannie Mae’s foreclosure regulations require an assignment from MERS to Fannie Mae in Rhode Island. This means that Fannie Mae will be the foreclosing entity. This is the same requirement that exists when the servicer is the record mortgage holder.
Version 1.1
November 1999
87
MERS stands in the same shoes as the servicer to the extent that it is not the beneficial owner of the promissory note. An investor, typically a secondary market investor, will still be the ultimate owner of the promissory note.35
At the foreclosure auction, MERS can waive the requirement of a deposit as to the investor. This way, the servicer can enter a bid on behalf of the investor without the investor needing to produce any funds. If it is the highest bid, the foreclosure deed can be issued directly to the investor. We have been advised that this procedure is the same procedure used when Freddie Mac or Ginnie Mae are the investors. Because the MERS recommended procedure follows the same procedure that is used when the servicer foreclosures in its name, no additional taxes are incurred by foreclosing in the name of MERS.
Evictions are handled the same way they are handled when the servicer commences the foreclosure as the foreclosing entity.
If the debtor declares bankruptcy, the proof of claim should be filed jointly in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and the servicer. It is advised to file in both names in order to disclose to the court the relationship of MERS and the servicer. The address to be used is the servicer’s address so that all trustee payments go directly to the servicer, not to MERS. The Motion for Relief from Stay may be filed either solely in the name of MERS or jointly with the servicer. If MERS is the foreclosing entity, then it is MERS that needs the relief from the bankruptcy.
35 Even though the servicer has physical custody of the note, custom in the mortgage industry is that the investor (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae or a private investor) owns the beneficial right to the promissory note.
Version 1.1
November 1999
88
MERS RECOMMENDED FORECLOSURE PROCEDURE
FOR SOUTH CAROLINA
Foreclosing a loan in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is something new in the foreclosure arena. However, when the role of MERS is examined, it becomes clear that MERS stands in the same position to foreclose as the servicer. MERS, like the servicer, will be the record mortgage holder. It is through the mortgage that MERS is given the authority to foreclose.
To help make a smooth transition from foreclosing loans in the name of the servicer to foreclosing loans in the name of MERS, we have developed state by state recommended guidelines to follow. These guidelines were developed in conjunction with experienced foreclosure counsel in your state. We have been able to keep the MERS recommended procedures consistent with the existing foreclosure procedures. The goal of the recommended procedures is to avoid adding any extra steps or incurring any additional taxes or costs by foreclosing in the name of MERS instead of the servicer.
MERS will continually review the guidelines and, if necessary, will issue revisions. The recommended guidelines to follow in your state are as follows:
Mortgages are typically used and are foreclosed judicially. MERS local counsel advises that a loan can be foreclosed in the name of MERS.36 When MERS has been assigned the mortgage, the caption of the complaint should state Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as the plaintiff. However, this changes slightly if MERS is the original mortgagee of record, meaning that MERS is named on the mortgage in a nominee capacity for the originating lender, its successors and assigns. The caption should then state Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as nominee for [insert name of the current servicer]. The key is how MERS is named as the mortgagee of record.
The body of the complaint should be the same as when foreclosing in the name of the servicer. However, it is advised that a paragraph be inserted that explains that the servicer is the entity that is servicing the loan. MERS stands in the same shoes as the servicer to the extent that it is not the beneficial owner of the promissory note. An investor, typically a secondary market investor, will still be the ultimate owner of the promissory note. 37
The agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae) require that the promissory note be endorsed in blank when the seller/servicer sells a mortgage loan to them. Therefore, the note should remain endorsed in blank when the foreclosure
36 We have been advised that the named plaintiff in the foreclosure action should be both the record holder of the mortgage and the holder of the promissory note. This is typically considered to be the servicer because if the promissory note is endorsed in blank and the servicer has physical custody of the note, the servicer will technically be the note holder as well as the record mortgage holder. By virtue of having the servicer’s employees be certifying officers of MERS, there can be an in-house transfer of possession of the note so that MERS is considered the note holder for purposes of foreclosing the loan.
Version 1.1
November 1999
89
37 Even though the servicer has physical custody of the note, custom in the mortgage industry is that the investor (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae or a private investor) owns the beneficial rights to the promissory note.
is commenced in the name of MERS unless it is legally required to be endorsed to the foreclosing entity and not just the preferred method. We have been advised that sometimes there is an endorsement of the note to the servicer prior to the foreclosure. However, we recommend that the agencies’ requirements be followed.
Employees of the servicer will be certifying officers of MERS. This means they are authorized to sign any necessary documents as an officer of MERS. The certifying officer is granted this power by a corporate resolution of MERS. In other words, the same individual that signs the documents for the servicer will continue to sign the documents, but now as an officer of MERS.
After a judgment to MERS is entered, a foreclosure sale is held. A bid is entered on behalf of MERS, and if the successful bid, then the bid will be assigned to the investor by using a one-page form instructing the sheriff of the assignment of bid. This is the same method that is used when the servicer forecloses in its name. The master in equity or the special referee would issue a deed directly to the investor. Local counsel advises that Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, VA and HUD are exempt from transfer taxes on the sheriff’s deed. Because the MERS recommended procedure follows the same procedure that is used when the servicer forecloses in its name, no additional taxes are incurred by foreclosing in the name of MERS.
Evictions are handled the same way they are handled when the servicer commences the foreclosure as the foreclosing entity. If it is an FHA-insured loan and an eviction is necessary, then the bid assignment is given to the servicer instead of to HUD. This way, the servicer will proceed with the eviction the same way it would if the foreclosure were filed in its own name.
If the debtor declares bankruptcy, the proof of claim should be filed jointly in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and the servicer. It is advised to file in both names in order to disclose to the court the relationship of MERS and the servicer. The address to be used is the servicer’s address so that all trustee payments go directly to the servicer, not to MERS. The Motion for Relief from Stay may be filed either solely in the name of MERS or jointly with the servicer. If MERS is the foreclosing entity, then it is MERS that needs the relief from the bankruptcy.
Version 1.1
November 1999
90
MERS RECOMMENDED FORECLOSURE PROCEDURE
FOR SOUTH DAKOTA
Foreclosing a loan in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is something new in the foreclosure arena. However, when the role of MERS is examined, it becomes clear that MERS stands in the same position to foreclose as the servicer. MERS, like the servicer, will be the record mortgage holder. It is through the mortgage or deed of trust that MERS is given the authority to foreclose.
To help make a smooth transition from foreclosing loans in the name of the servicer to foreclosing loans in the name of MERS, we have developed state by state recommended guidelines to follow. These guidelines were developed in conjunction with experienced foreclosure counsel in your state. We have been able to keep the MERS recommended procedures consistent with the existing foreclosure procedures. The goal of the recommended procedures is to avoid adding any extra steps or incurring any additional taxes or costs by foreclosing in the name of MERS instead of the servicer.
MERS will continually review the guidelines and, if necessary, will issue revisions. The recommended guidelines to follow in your state are as follows:
Mortgages are typically used and are foreclosed judicially. MERS local counsel advises that a loan can be foreclosed in the name of MERS. When MERS has been assigned the mortgage, the caption of the complaint should state Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as the plaintiff. However, this changes slightly if MERS is the original mortgagee of record, meaning that MERS is named on the mortgage in a nominee capacity for the originating lender. The caption should then state Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as nominee for [insert name of the current servicer]. The key is how MERS become the mortgage holder.
The body of the complaint should be the same as when foreclosing in the name of the servicer. MERS stands in the same shoes as the servicer in relation to not being the beneficial owner of the promissory note. An investor, typically a secondary market investor, will still be the ultimate owner of the promissory note.38
The agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae) require a blank endorsement of the promissory note when the seller/servicer sells a mortgage loan to them. Therefore, the note should remain endorsed in blank when the foreclosure is commenced in the name of MERS.
Employees of the servicer will be certifying officers of MERS. This means they are authorized to sign any necessary documents as an officer of MERS. The certifying officer is granted this power by a corporate resolution of MERS. In other words, the
38 Even though the servicer has physical custody of the note, custom in the mortgage industry is that the investor (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae or a private investor) owns the beneficial right to the promissory note.
Version 1.1
November 1999
91
same individual that signs the documents for the servicer will continue to sign the documents, but now as an officer of MERS.
After a judgment to MERS is entered, a sheriff’s sale is held. The certifying officer will instruct the foreclosing attorney as to the bid to be entered on behalf of MERS. If it is the successful bid, then one of two options can be followed39. The first is that the Certificate of Sale may be assigned from MERS to the investor. This way, upon expiration of the redemption period, the sheriff’s deed will issue directly to the investor. There is a recording cost for the Certificate of Sale. The second option is that upon the expiration of the redemption period, MERS is issued the sheriff’s deed by virtue of being the holder of the Certificate of Sale. If this option is followed, MERS should only remain in the chain of title for as short of time as possible. A subsequent deed will then be executed from MERS to the investor. We have been advised that this latter option is the method that is used when the servicer forecloses in its name. Typically the servicer is issued the sheriff’s deed, and then issues a subsequent deed to the investor. Because the MERS recommended procedure follows the same procedure that is used when the servicer forecloses in its name, no additional taxes are incurred by foreclosing in the name of MERS.
Evictions are handled the same way they are handled when the servicer commences the foreclosure as the foreclosing entity.
If the debtor declares bankruptcy, the proof of claim should be filed jointly in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and the servicer. It is advised to file in both names in order to disclose to the court the relationship of MERS and the servicer. The address to be used is the servicer’s address so that all trustee payments go directly to the servicer, not to MERS. The Motion for Relief from Stay may be filed either solely in the name of MERS or jointly with the servicer. If MERS is the foreclosing entity, then it is MERS that needs the relief from the bankruptcy.
39 MERS prefers to not take title to the property, so the Certificate of Sale should be assigned if possible. However, either option is acceptable.
Version 1.1
November 1999
92
MERS RECOMMENDED FORECLOSURE PROCEDURE
FOR TENNESSEE
Foreclosing a loan in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is something new in the foreclosure arena. However, when the role of MERS is examined, it becomes clear that MERS stands in the same position to foreclose as the servicer. MERS, in place of the servicer, will be the record mortgage holder. It is the mortgage or deed of trust that gives MERS the authority to foreclose.
To help make a smooth transition from foreclosing loans in the name of the servicer to foreclosing loans in the name of MERS, we have developed state by state recommended guidelines to follow. These guidelines were developed in conjunction with experienced foreclosure counsel in your state. We have been able to keep the MERS recommended procedures consistent with the existing foreclosure procedures. The goal of the recommended procedures is to avoid adding any extra steps or incurring any additional taxes or costs by foreclosing in the name of MERS instead of the servicer.
MERS will continually review the guidelines and, if necessary, will issue revisions. The recommended guidelines to follow in your state are as follows:
Deeds of Trust are used and are generally foreclosed non-judicially under a power of sale in the security instrument. Local counsel advises that a foreclosure can be brought in the name of MERS. The Notice of Default is filed and published the same way it is when foreclosing in the name of the servicer except that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) will be named as the foreclosing entity.
Employees of the servicer will be certifying officers of MERS. This means they are authorized to sign any necessary documents, such as the Appointment of Substitution of Trustee, as an officer of MERS. The certifying officer is granted this power by a corporate resolution of MERS. In other words, the same individual that signs the documents for the servicer will continue to sign the documents, but now as an officer of MERS.
The agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae) require a blank endorsement of the promissory note when the seller/servicer sells a mortgage loan to them. Therefore, the note should remain endorsed in blank when the foreclosure is commenced in the name of MERS.
At the trustee sale, the certifying officer will instruct the trustee regarding the bid to be entered on behalf of MERS. In the Trustee’s Deed, the bid will be assigned to the investor, unless the certifying officer instructs the trustee to assign the bid to the servicer. We have been advised that the current foreclosure procedure is a one-deed process with the investor directly taking title upon the conclusion of the trustee’s sale. Therefore, the MERS recommended procedure is the same as the current practice of assigning the bid to the investor. Because the MERS recommended
Version 1.1
November 1999
93
procedure follows the same procedure that is used when the servicer forecloses in its name, no additional taxes are incurred by foreclosing in the name of MERS.
Evictions are handled the same way they are handled when the servicer commences the foreclosure as the foreclosing entity. If it is an FHA-insured loan, the eviction may need to be brought in the name of MERS. Therefore, MERS may need to be the grantee of the trustee’s deed. After the eviction is completed, MERS will then issue a deed to HUD.40
If the debtor declares bankruptcy, the proof of claim should be filed jointly in the name of MERS and the servicer. It is advised to file in both names in order to disclose to the court the relationship of MERS and the servicer. The address to be used is the servicer’s address so that all trustee payments go directly to the servicer. The Motion for Relief from Stay may be filed either solely in the name of MERS or jointly with the servicer. If MERS is the foreclosing entity, then it is MERS that needs the relief from the bankruptcy.
40 MERS should only be in the chain of title for as short of a time as possible. As soon as the eviction is completed, the deed to HUD should be recorded.
Version 1.1
November 1999
94
MERS RECOMMENDED FORECLOSURE PROCEDURE
FOR TEXAS
Foreclosing a loan in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is something new in the foreclosure arena. However, when the role of MERS is examined, it becomes clear that MERS stands in the same position to foreclose as the servicer. MERS, like the servicer, will be the mortgagee or beneficiary of record in the chain of title. It is through the power of sale in the deed of trust that MERS is given the authority to foreclose.
To help make a smooth transition from foreclosing loans in the name of the servicer to foreclosing loans in the name of MERS, we have developed state by state recommended guidelines to follow. These guidelines were developed in conjunction with experienced foreclosure counsel in your state. We have been able to keep the MERS recommended procedures consistent with the existing foreclosure procedures. The goal of the recommended procedures is to avoid adding any extra steps or incurring any additional taxes or costs by foreclosing in the name of MERS instead of the servicer.
MERS will continually review the guidelines and, if necessary, will issue revisions. The recommended guidelines to follow in your state are as follows:
Deeds of Trust are foreclosed non-judicially. Local counsel advises that a foreclosure can be brought in the name of MERS. The foreclosure is commenced the same way as if it were being brought in the servicer’s name except that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) will be named the foreclosing entity as the mortgagee or beneficiary of record as the nominee for the current servicer.
Employees of the servicer will be certifying officers of MERS. This means they are authorized to sign any necessary documents, such as the Appointment of Substitution of Trustee, as an officer of MERS. The certifying officer is granted this power by a corporate resolution of MERS. In other words, the same individual that signs the documents for the servicer will continue to sign the documents, but now as an officer of MERS.
The agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae) require a blank endorsement of the promissory note when the seller/servicer sells a mortgage loan to them. Therefore, the note should remain endorsed in blank when the foreclosure is commenced in the name of MERS.
At the trustee sale, the certifying officer will instruct the trustee regarding the bid to be entered on behalf of MERS as the mortgagee of record. If the bid is the highest bid, then the trustee’s deed is issued to MERS as the mortgagee of record and as the nominee for the current servicer. The servicer, as a duly appointed officer of MERS, can then convey the property by deed to the investor which is the same as the current practice that is used when foreclosing in the name of the servicer as mortgagee or
Version 1.1
November 1999
95
beneficiary of record. Because the MERS recommended procedure follows the same procedure that is used when the servicer forecloses in its name, no additional taxes are incurred by foreclosing in the name of MERS.
Evictions are handled the same way they are handled when the servicer commences the foreclosure as the foreclosing entity.
If the debtor declares bankruptcy, the proof of claim should be filed jointly in the name of MERS and the servicer. It is advised to file in both names in order to disclose to the court the relationship of MERS and the servicer. The address to be used is the servicer’s address so that all trustee payments go directly to the servicer, not to MERS. The Motion for Relief from Stay may be filed either solely in the name of MERS or jointly with the servicer. If MERS is the foreclosing entity, then it is MERS that needs the relief from the bankruptcy.
Version 1.1
November 1999
96
MERS RECOMMENDED FORECLOSURE PROCEDURE
FOR UTAH
Foreclosing a loan in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is something new in the foreclosure arena. However, when the role of MERS is examined, it becomes clear that MERS stands in the same position to foreclose as the servicer. MERS, like the servicer, will be the record mortgage holder. It is through the mortgage or deed of trust that MERS is given the authority to foreclose.
To help make a smooth transition from foreclosing loans in the name of the servicer to foreclosing loans in the name of MERS, we have developed state by state recommended guidelines to follow. These guidelines were developed in conjunction with experienced foreclosure counsel in your state. We have been able to keep the MERS recommended procedures consistent with the existing foreclosure procedures. The goal of the recommended procedures is to avoid adding any extra steps or incurring any additional taxes or costs by foreclosing in the name of MERS instead of the servicer.
MERS will continually review the guidelines and, if necessary, will issue revisions. The recommended guidelines to follow in your state are as follows:
Deeds of Trust are foreclosed non-judicially. Local counsel advises that a foreclosure can be brought in the name of MERS. The Notice of Default and Election to Sell is filed with the county recorder. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) will be named as the foreclosing entity instead of the servicer.
Employees of the servicer will be certifying officers of MERS. This means they are authorized to sign any necessary documents, such as the Substitution of Trustee, as an officer of MERS. The certifying officer is granted this power by a corporate resolution of MERS. In other words, the same individual that signs the documents for the servicer will continue to sign the documents, but now as an officer of MERS.
The agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae) require a blank endorsement when the seller/servicer sells a mortgage loan to them. Therefore, the note should remain endorsed in blank when the foreclosure is commenced in the name of MERS.
After the reinstatement period expires, the Notice of Sale is published for the required length of time. Once this is completed, the foreclosure sale is held. The certifying officer will instruct the trustee regarding the bid to be entered on behalf of MERS. If the bid is the highest bid, the certifying officer will instruct the trustee to deed the property directly to the investor. We have been advised that this procedure is the same procedure used when foreclosing in the name of the servicer. Therefore, no additional taxes are incurred by foreclosing in the name of MERS in place of the servicer.
Version 1.1
November 1999
97
Evictions are handled the same way they are handled when the servicer commences the foreclosure as the foreclosing entity. If it is an FHA-insured loan and an eviction is necessary, then the servicer can be substituted as the interested party.41 This way, the eviction can be brought in the name of the servicer. Once the eviction is completed, then the servicer can issue a deed to HUD. Again, you should follow the same procedures you follow when foreclosing in the name of the servicer.
If the debtor declares bankruptcy, the proof of claim should be filed jointly in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and the servicer. It is advised to file in both names in order to disclose to the court the relationship of MERS and the servicer. The address to be used is the servicer’s address so that all trustee payments go directly to the servicer, not to MERS. The Motion for Relief from Stay may be filed either solely in the name of MERS or jointly with the servicer. If MERS is the foreclosing entity, then it is MERS that needs the relief from the bankruptcy.
41 MERS local counsel advises that an eviction is brought in the name of the party that takes title to the property following the foreclosure sale.
Version 1.1
November 1999
98
MERS RECOMMENDED FORECLOSURE PROCEDURE
FOR VERMONT
Foreclosing a loan in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is something new in the foreclosure arena. When the role of MERS is examined, it becomes clear that MERS stands in the same position to foreclose as the servicer. MERS, like the servicer, will be the record mortgage holder. It is through the mortgage that MERS is given the authority to foreclose.
To help make a smooth transition from foreclosing loans in the name of the servicer to foreclosing loans in the name of MERS, we have developed state by state recommended guidelines to follow. These guidelines were developed in conjunction with experienced foreclosure counsel in your state. We have been able to keep the MERS recommended procedures consistent with the existing foreclosure procedures. The goal of the recommended procedures is to avoid adding any extra steps or incurring any additional taxes or costs by foreclosing in the name of MERS instead of the servicer.
MERS will continually review the guidelines and, if necessary, will issue revisions. The recommended guidelines to follow in your state are as follows:
Mortgages are typically used and are foreclosed judicially. MERS local counsel advises that a loan can be foreclosed in the name of MERS. Over 90% of the foreclosures are by strict foreclosures. When MERS has been assigned the mortgage, the caption of the complaint should state Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as the plaintiff. However, this changes slightly if MERS is the original mortgagee of record, meaning that MERS is named on the mortgage in a nominee capacity for the originating lender, its successors and assigns. The caption should then state Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as nominee for [insert name of the current servicer]. The key is how MERS is named as the mortgagee of record.
The body of the complaint should be the same as when foreclosing in the name of the servicer. MERS stands in the same shoes as the servicer to the extent that it is not the beneficial owner of the promissory note. An investor, typically a secondary market investor, will still be the ultimate owner of the promissory note.42
The agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae) require a blank endorsement of the promissory note when the seller/servicer sells a mortgage loan to them. Therefore, the note should remain endorsed in blank when the foreclosure is commenced in the name of MERS unless it is legally required to be endorsed to the
42 The servicer usually has physical custody of the note at the time of the foreclosure with a blank endorsement. This makes the servicer the noteholder for the purposes of foreclosing. However, custom in the mortgage industry is that the investor (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae or a private investor) owns the beneficial rights to the promissory note.
Version 1.1
November 1999
99
foreclosing entity. If it is required to endorse the promissory note to the foreclosing entity, then the note may need to be endorsed to MERS. Local counsel has advised that it is essential that the Promissory Note be held in the name of the mortgage holder.43
Employees of the servicer will be certifying officers of MERS. This means they are authorized to sign any necessary documents as an officer of MERS. The certifying officer is granted this power by a corporate resolution of MERS. In other words, the same individual that signs the documents for the servicer will continue to sign the documents, but now as an officer of MERS.
Because the majority of the foreclosures are by strict foreclosure, title will vest in MERS momentarily.44 The certifying officer will submit an affidavit of amounts due to the Clerk of Court, after which a default or summary judgment will be issued by the Court. The Clerk will prepare an accounting. Once the accounting is received, a judgment is prepared and served. The judgment is then signed by the Court. After the redemption period expires, a Certificate of Non-Redemption and Writ of Possession will be issued by the Court to MERS. The property will then be deeded from MERS to the investor. This is the same process that occurs when the servicer of the mortgage loan forecloses in its name. Because the MERS recommended procedure follows the same procedure that is used when the servicer forecloses in its name, no additional taxes are incurred by foreclosing in the name of MERS.
An alternative option is to file a Motion for Substitution of Parties after the judgment to MERS is entered. At this time, an unrecorded assignment of the mortgage needs to be shown to the judge. It should be noted that certain courts are not staffed with full time judges and there may be a slight increase in time before this Motion can be decided. It is recommended that this Motion be filed as soon as possible after the judgment is entered so that it is completed prior to the expiration of the redemption period. At the end of the redemption period, a Certificate of Non-Redemption is recorded which transfers the title. Prior to the Certificate being issued, the assignment of the mortgage is recorded.
Local counsel advises that Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, VA and HUD are exempt from transfer taxes on the sheriff’s deed.
43 We have been advised that the named plaintiff in the foreclosure action should be both the record holder of the mortgage and the holder of the promissory note. This is typically considered to be the servicer because if the promissory note is endorsed in blank and the servicer has physical custody of the note, the servicer will technically be the note holder as well as the record mortgage holder. By virtue of having the servicer’s employees be certifying officers of MERS, there can be an in-house transfer of possession of the note so that MERS is considered the note holder for purposes of foreclosing the loan.
44 MERS should only remain the titleholder for as short as time as possible. A subsequent deed should be executed to the investor immediately. Version 1.1
November 1999
100
Evictions are handled the same way they are handled when the servicer commences the foreclosure as the foreclosing entity.
If the debtor declares bankruptcy, the proof of claim should be filed jointly in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and the servicer. It is advised to file in both names in order to disclose to the court the relationship of MERS and the servicer. The address to be used is the servicer’s address so that all trustee payments go directly to the servicer, not to MERS. The Motion for Relief from Stay may be filed either solely in the name of MERS or jointly with the servicer. If MERS is the foreclosing entity, then it is MERS that needs the relief from the bankruptcy.
Version 1.1
November 1999
101
MERS RECOMMENDED FORECLOSURE PROCEDURE
FOR VIRGINIA
Foreclosing a loan in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is something new in the foreclosure arena. However, when the role of MERS is examined, it becomes clear that MERS stands in the same position to foreclose as the servicer. MERS, like the servicer, will be the record mortgage holder. It is through the mortgage or deed of trust that MERS is given the authority to foreclose.
To help make a smooth transition from foreclosing loans in the name of the servicer to foreclosing loans in the name of MERS, we have developed state by state recommended guidelines to follow. These guidelines were developed in conjunction with experienced foreclosure counsel in your state. We have been able to keep the MERS recommended procedures consistent with the existing foreclosure procedures. The goal of the recommended procedures is to avoid adding any extra steps or incurring any additional taxes or costs by foreclosing in the name of MERS instead of the servicer.
MERS will continually review the guidelines and, if necessary, will issue revisions. The recommended guidelines to follow in your state are as follows:
Deeds of Trust are foreclosed non-judicially by a power of sale given to the Trustee upon default. Local counsel advises that a foreclosure can be brought in the name of MERS.45 The same procedure that is followed when foreclosing in the name of the servicer is followed when foreclosing in the name of MERS except that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) will be named as the foreclosing entity.
Employees of the servicer will be certifying officers of MERS. This means they are authorized to sign any necessary documents, such as the Substitution of Trustee, as an officer of MERS. The certifying officer is granted this power by a corporate resolution of MERS. In other words, the same individual that signs the documents for the servicer will continue to sign the documents, but now as an officer of MERS.
The agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae) require a blank endorsement of the promissory note when the seller/servicer sells a mortgage loan to them. Because the original note is required to be shown to the Commissioner at the time of the final accounting, the note is usually endorsed to the servicer when foreclosing in the name of the servicer. Therefore, local counsel advises that the note may need to be endorsed to MERS as the foreclosing entity. The endorsement of the note to the servicer is the same procedure that is followed when foreclosing in the name of the servicer.
45 Local Counsel advises that the promissory note is endorsed to the servicer prior to commencing a foreclosure so that the servicer becomes the noteholder. In order for a foreclosure to be brought in the name of MERS, the note should be endorsed to MERS so that MERS is the noteholder.
Version 1.1
November 1999
102
At the trustee sale, the certifying officer will instruct the trustee regarding the bid to be entered on behalf of MERS. If the bid is the highest bid, then the trustee will be instructed to deed the property directly to the investor. We have been advised that this procedure is the same used when foreclosing in the name of the servicer. Therefore, no additional taxes are incurred by foreclosing in the name of MERS.
Evictions are handled the same way they are handled when the servicer commences the foreclosure as the foreclosing entity. If it is an FHA-insured loan and an eviction is necessary, then the servicer can be deeded the property so that the eviction can be brought in the name of the servicer. Once the eviction is completed, then the servicer can issue a deed to HUD. Again, you should follow the same procedures you follow when foreclosing in the name of the servicer.
If the debtor declares bankruptcy, the proof of claim should be filed jointly in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and the servicer. It is advised to file in both names in order to disclose to the court the relationship of MERS and the servicer. The address to be used is the servicer’s address so that all trustee payments go directly to the servicer, not to MERS. The Motion for Relief from Stay may be filed either solely in the name of MERS or jointly with the servicer. If MERS is the foreclosing entity, then it is MERS that needs the relief from the bankruptcy.
Version 1.1
November 1999
103
MERS RECOMMENDED FORECLOSURE PROCEDURE
FOR WASHINGTON
Foreclosing a loan in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is something new in the foreclosure arena. However, when the role of MERS is examined, it becomes clear that MERS stands in the same position to foreclose as the servicer. MERS, like the servicer, will be the record mortgage holder. It is through the mortgage or deed of trust that MERS is given the authority to foreclose.
To help make a smooth transition from foreclosing loans in the name of the servicer to foreclosing loans in the name of MERS, we have developed state by state recommended guidelines to follow. These guidelines were developed in conjunction with experienced foreclosure counsel in your state. We have been able to keep the MERS recommended procedures consistent with the existing foreclosure procedures. The goal of the recommended procedures is to avoid adding any extra steps or incurring any additional taxes or costs by foreclosing in the name of MERS instead of the servicer.
MERS will continually review the guidelines and, if necessary, will issue revisions. The recommended guidelines to follow in your state are as follows:
Deeds of Trust are used and are foreclosed non-judicially by conferring a power of sale on the trustee in the event of default by the borrower. MERS local counsel advises that a loan can be foreclosed in the name of MERS.
Employees of the servicer will be certifying officers of MERS. This means they are authorized to sign any necessary documents, such as the substitution of trustee, as an officer of MERS. The certifying officer is granted this power by a corporate resolution of MERS. In other words, the same individual that signs the documents for the servicer will continue to sign the documents, but now as an officer of MERS.
The agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae) require a blank endorsement of the promissory note when the seller/servicer sells a mortgage loan to them. Therefore, the note should remain endorsed in blank when the foreclosure is commenced in the name of MERS.
The only change to the foreclosure procedure is to name Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as the foreclosing entity. The Notice of Default and Notice of Trustee’s Sale is still required to be sent and published and all requirements related to these Notices must be followed. At the trustee’s sale, a bid will be entered on behalf of MERS. The bid is entered the same way it is entered for the servicer when foreclosing in the servicer’s name. If the bid is the highest bid, then the trustee’s deed can be issued directly to the investor. This is the same procedure that is followed when commencing a foreclosure in the name of the servicer. The Trustee’s deed will identify the investor as the grantee under the trustee’s deed and will recite that MERS, as nominee, successfully bid for the
Version 1.1
November 1999
104
property at the trustee’s sale. Because the MERS recommended procedure follows the same procedure that is used when the servicer forecloses in its name, no additional recording or transfer taxes are incurred by foreclosing in the name of MERS.
Evictions are handled the same way they are handled when the servicer commences the foreclosure as the foreclosing entity. If it is an FHA-insured loan and an eviction is necessary, then the bid assignment is given to the servicer instead of to HUD. This way, the servicer will proceed with the eviction the same way it would if the foreclosure were filed in its own name.
If the debtor declares bankruptcy, the proof of claim should be filed jointly in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and the servicer. It is advised to file in both names in order to disclose to the court the relationship of MERS and the servicer. The address to be used is the servicer’s address so that all trustee payments go directly to the servicer, not to MERS. The Motion for Relief from Stay may be filed either solely in the name of MERS or jointly with the servicer. If MERS is the foreclosing entity, then it is MERS that needs the relief from the bankruptcy.
Version 1.1
November 1999
105
MERS RECOMMENDED FORECLOSURE PROCEDURE
FOR WEST VIRGINIA
Foreclosing a loan in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is something new in the foreclosure arena. However, when the role of MERS is examined, it becomes clear that MERS stands in the same position to foreclose as the servicer. MERS, like the servicer, will be the record mortgage holder. It is through the mortgage or deed of trust that MERS is given the authority to foreclose.
To help make a smooth transition from foreclosing loans in the name of the servicer to foreclosing loans in the name of MERS, we have developed state by state recommended guidelines to follow. These guidelines were developed with experienced foreclosure counsel in your state. We have been able to keep the MERS recommended procedures consistent with the existing foreclosure procedures. The goal of the recommended procedures is to avoid adding any extra steps or incurring any additional taxes or costs by foreclosing in the name of MERS instead of the servicer.
MERS will continually review the guidelines and, if necessary, will issue revisions. The recommended guidelines to follow in your state are as follows:
Deeds of Trust are foreclosed non-judicially. Local counsel advises that a foreclosure can be brought in the name of MERS. The notice of sale is served on the grantor of the Deed of Trust by certified mail. The foreclosure sale is published according to the same requirements followed when foreclosing in the name of the servicer. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) will be named as the foreclosing entity instead of the servicer.
Employees of the servicer will be certifying officers of MERS. This means they are authorized to sign any necessary documents, such as the Substitution of Trustee, as an officer of MERS. The certifying officer is granted this power by a corporate resolution of MERS. In other words, the same individual that signs the documents for the servicer will continue to sign the documents, but now as an officer of MERS.
The agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae) require a blank endorsement of the promissory note when the seller/servicer sells a mortgage loan to them. Therefore, the note should remain endorsed in blank when the foreclosure is commenced in the name of MERS.
At the trustee auction, the certifying officer will instruct the trustee regarding the bid to be entered on behalf of MERS. If the bid is the highest bid, then the certifying officer will instruct the trustee on how to deed the property. A three-party deed can be used with the trustee transferring the property to the investor. MERS simply signs the deed and states that it has assigned its right in its bid to the investor. We have been advised that this procedure is the same procedure used when foreclosing
Version 1.1
November 1999
106
in the name of the servicer. Therefore, no additional taxes are incurred by foreclosing in the name of MERS.
Evictions are handled the same way they are handled when the servicer commences the foreclosure as the foreclosing entity. If it is an FHA-insured loan and an eviction is necessary, then the property can be deeded to the servicer. This way, the eviction can be brought in the name of the servicer. Once the eviction is completed, the servicer can issue a deed to HUD. Again, you should follow the same procedures you follow when foreclosing in the name of the servicer.
If the debtor declares bankruptcy, the proof of claim should be filed jointly in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and the servicer. It is advised to file in both names in order to disclose to the court the relationship of MERS and the servicer. The address to be used is the servicer’s address so that all trustee payments go directly to the servicer, not to MERS. The Motion for Relief from Stay may be filed either solely in the name of MERS or jointly with the servicer. If MERS is the foreclosing entity, then it is MERS that needs the relief from the bankruptcy.
Version 1.1
November 1999
107
MERS RECOMMENDED FORECLOSURE PROCEDURE
FOR WISCONSIN
Foreclosing a loan in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is something new in the foreclosure arena. However, when the role of MERS is examined, it becomes clear that MERS stands in the same position to foreclose as the servicer. MERS, like a servicer, will be the record mortgage holder. It is through the mortgage or deed of trust that MERS is given the authority to foreclose.
To help make a smooth transition from foreclosing loans in the name of the servicer to foreclosing loans in the name of MERS, we have developed state by state recommended guidelines to follow. These guidelines were developed in conjunction with experienced foreclosure counsel in your state. We have been able to keep the MERS recommended procedures consistent with the existing foreclosure procedures. The goal of the recommended procedures is to avoid adding any extra steps or incurring any additional taxes or costs by foreclosing in the name of MERS instead of the servicer.
MERS will continually review the guidelines and, if necessary, will issue revisions. The recommended guidelines to follow in your state are as follows:
Mortgages are typically used and are foreclosed judicially. The caption of the complaint should name Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) as the plaintiff. The body of the complaint should be the same as when foreclosing in the name of the servicer. MERS stands in the same shoes as the servicer to the extent that it is not the beneficial owner of the promissory note. A secondary market investor will still be the owner of the promissory note. A paragraph can be added to the complaint to explain the role of MERS as being the mortgagee of record with the authority to foreclose.
The agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae) require a blank endorsement of the promissory note when a seller/servicer sells a mortgage loan to them. Therefore, the note should remain endorsed in blank when the foreclosure is commenced in the name of MERS.
Employees of the servicer will be certifying officers of MERS. This means they are authorized to sign any necessary documents as an officer of MERS. The certifying officer is granted this power by a corporate resolution of MERS. In other words, the same individual that signs the documents for the servicer will continue to sign the documents, but now as an officer of MERS.
After a foreclosure judgment in favor of MERS is entered and after expiration of the redemption period, a foreclosure sale is held. The certifying officer will provide local counsel with bid instructions. A bid will be entered on behalf of MERS, and if it is the highest bid, MERS will assign its bid to the investor and the investor can appear as the grantee on the Sheriff’s Deed. The Sheriff’s deed is then issued
Version 1.1
November 1999
108
directly to the investor. The assignment of the bid is the method that is being used when the servicer forecloses in its name. The sheriff’s deed is exempt from transfer tax as are sheriff’s deeds following an assignment of bid. Certain other transfers, as between “principal and agent for no consideration may also be exempt from transfer tax. Because the MERS recommended procedure follows the procedure used when foreclosing in the servicer’s name, no additional taxes are incurred.
Evictions are handled the same way they are handled when the servicer commences the foreclosure as the foreclosing entity. If it is an FHA-insured loan and an eviction is necessary, then the bid assignment is given to the servicer instead of to the investor (HUD). This way, the servicer will proceed with the eviction the same way it would if the foreclosure were filed in its own name.
If the debtor declares bankruptcy, the proof of claim should be filed jointly in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and the servicer. It is advised to file in both names in order to disclose to the court the relationship of MERS and the servicer. The address to be used is the servicer’s address so that all trustee payments go directly to the servicer, not to MERS. The Motion for Relief from Stay may be filed either solely in the name of MERS or jointly with the servicer. If MERS is the foreclosing entity, then it is MERS that needs the relief from the bankruptcy.
Version 1.1
November 1999
109
MERS RECOMMENDED FORECLOSURE PROCEDURE
FOR WYOMING
Foreclosing a loan in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is something new in the foreclosure arena. However, when the role of MERS is examined, it becomes clear that MERS stands in the same position to foreclose as the servicer. MERS, like the servicer, will be the record mortgage holder. It is through the mortgage or deed of trust that MERS is given the authority to foreclose.
To help make a smooth transition from foreclosing loans in the name of the servicer to foreclosing loans in the name of MERS, we have developed state by state recommended guidelines to follow. These guidelines were developed with experienced foreclosure counsel in your state. We have been able to keep the MERS recommended procedures consistent with the existing foreclosure procedures. The goal of the recommended procedures is to avoid adding any extra steps or incurring any additional taxes or costs by foreclosing in the name of MERS instead of the servicer.
MERS will continually review the guidelines and, if necessary, will issue revisions. The recommended guidelines to follow in your state are as follows:
Mortgages are foreclosed non-judicially by a power of sale contained in the mortgage. Local counsel advises that a foreclosure can be brought in the name of MERS. Notice of the sale is recorded in the real estate records and mailed by certified mail to all interested parties. The same procedures followed when foreclosing a mortgage loan in the name of the servicer is followed when foreclosing in the name of MERS except that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) will be named as the foreclosing entity instead of the servicer. Publication of the sale occurs ten (10) days after the recording and mailing of the Notice.
Employees of the servicer will be certifying officers of MERS. This means they are authorized to sign any necessary documents as an officer of MERS. The certifying officer is granted this power by a corporate resolution of MERS. In other words, the same individual that signs the documents for the servicer will continue to sign the documents, but now as an officer of MERS.
The agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae) require a blank endorsement of the promissory note when the seller/servicer sells a mortgage loan to them. Therefore, the note should remain endorsed in blank when the foreclosure is commenced in the name of MERS.
At the sheriff’s sale, the certifying officer will instruct the sheriff regarding the bid to be entered on behalf of MERS. If the bid is the highest bid, then MERS will be issued a Certificate of Purchase. The Certificate of Purchase will be assigned to the investor. We have been advised that this is the same procedure used when foreclosing in the name of the servicer. Because the MERS recommended procedure
Version 1.1
November 1999
110
follows the same procedure that is used when the servicer forecloses in its name, no additional recording costs are incurred by foreclosing in the name of MERS. Wyoming does not have transfer taxes.
Evictions are handled the same way they are handled when the servicer commences the foreclosure as the foreclosing entity. If it is an FHA-insured loan and an eviction is necessary, then the servicer can be assigned the Certificate. This way, the eviction can be brought in the name of the servicer. Once the eviction is completed, then the servicer can issue a deed to HUD. Again, you should follow the same procedures you follow when foreclosing in the name of the servicer.
If the debtor declares bankruptcy, the proof of claim should be filed jointly in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and the servicer. It is advised to file in both names in order to disclose to the court the relationship of MERS and the servicer. The address to be used is the servicer’s address so that all trustee payments go directly to the servicer, not to MERS. The Motion for Relief from Stay may be filed either solely in the name of MERS or jointly with the servicer. If MERS is the foreclosing entity, then it is MERS that needs the relief from the bankruptcy.
Version 1.1
November 1999
111

Bank Robo-Signers Oust Homeowners

It could almost come from a science fiction movie where tens of thousands are forced out of their homes by a cold, mechanized Robo-Signer. But it’s not science fiction. It’s reality.

Over the past two weeks, both Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase have suspended their foreclosure proceedings for tens of thousands of mortgages as they look at their foreclosure process. The issue? Robo-Signers are authorizing thousands of foreclosures every week denying homeowners a proper, human review and proper consideration for their individual foreclosure case.

At least RoboCop had it right when he said, “Serve the public trust, protect the innocent, uphold the law.” Have banks’ foreclosure practices violated the public trust? Foreclosed on innocent homeowners? Broken the law?

In fact, banks in Florida, Texas, Maine and other states are withdrawing their foreclosure affidavits that were signed by Robo-Signers. GMAC and Chase in particular have admitted in sworn depositions that they have used Robo-Signers to authorize as many as 10,000 foreclosure documents a month without proper review and notorization.

Banks like GMAC claim that the errors are technical in nature and didn’t result in any inappropriate foreclosures. Attorneys General in states like Colorado, Texas, Iowa and others are looking into GMAC’s practices to see if they constitute criminal fraud.

Unfortunately, many homeowners, maybe 60% or more, facing foreclosure do little or nothing to safeguard their rights allowing Robo-Signers to run rough-shod over them. But some homeowners who have fought back have found irregularities in the foreclosure process used by banks. In some cases, the bank didn’t even own the loan it. It had been sold into a securitized trust held by other investors meaning that the bank had no basis for foreclosure.

According to the Wall Street Journal, IndyMac used a Robo-Signer named Erica A Johnson-Seck to sign more than 6,000 documents a week. Upon review by a court, it was determined that IndyMac couldn’t possibly have properly reviewed foreclosure cases as required by law.

More and more homeowners are beginning to fight their foreclosure process. Some complain that this will slow down the foreclosure process and, thus, the housing recovery.

Homeowner v Robo-signer

Bank Robo-Signers Oust Homeowners

It could almost come from a science fiction movie where tens of thousands are forced out of their homes by a cold, mechanized Robo-Signer. But it’s not science fiction. It’s reality.

More and more homeowners are beginning to fight their foreclosure process. Some complain that this will slow down the foreclosure process and, thus, the housing recovery.

the debate

Debunking the Gospel of Garfield

April 7, 2010 by admin · 15 Comments

Since starting MFI-Miami almost 2 years ago, I have received some pretty strange calls from people. I’ve had real estate agents call me who have bought 15 income properties and then try to claim they are victim of Predatory Lending. I’ve had people who have bought investment properties who thought because they watched two episodes of The Apprentice they’re as smart as Donald Trump. I have gotten calls from the conspiracy theorists who think the Obama Administration wants their property so they can build an internment camp on it when the armed UN hovercraft come skimming over the Everglades. These are some of the more interesting calls.

However, the most interesting calls I get are from Pro Se litigants. What are Pro Se litigants? Pro Se litigants are homeowners who represent themselves in court and usually have no training as a lawyer. They are usually people who think they know more than everyone else or have the attitude of “Why should I hire a lawyer when I can do it myself.”

As the saying goes, “An attorney who represents themselves has a fool for a client.” Here’s a case in point. I had a foreclosure client when I started MFI-Miami, who filed an answer to his foreclosure that he copied and pasted off Neil Garfield’s website, Living Lies. My client then tells me he was going file a federal civil RICO case against his lender because his wife’s “forged” signature violated interstate commerce laws which is a RICO predicate. When I asked him who told him he could do that, he claimed he read he could do it on Garfield’s site. I have since received dozens of calls from people asking me for free advice based on what they read by Neil Garfield.

I have received at least 6 calls in the past week from Pro Se litigants claiming that they don’t know what to do because their Florida judge laughs at them for demanding the wet inked copy of their note. This is one of those misconceptions out on the blogosphere that had its origin from the Living Lies site. The misconception is that if the servicer or the Trustee cannot produce the original wet inked note, then they lack legal standing to execute a foreclosure and therefore the debt obligation is now nullified. This is absolutely false. In Florida, the transfer affidavit or note must officially be on record with the county 60 days prior to a servicer or Trustee filing the initial foreclosure complaint. When the attorney files the foreclosure complaint, all they are required to do is attach a copy of the original note.

For those you who don’t know who Neil Garfield is, he is a self-proclaimed Foreclosure Expert who holds seminars across the country for lawyers and Pro-Se litigants helping them fight foreclosures. According to his biography, was an Economist, Accountant and he is a “Chairman Emeritus” of a consortium of financial service companies and claims to be the “ultimate insider” on Wall Street. (Page 4, Garfield Continuum Handbook) Yet, he never mentions which companies he has worked with or the positions he held. The state of Florida also has no license on file for him being an accountant.

If he was a Wall Street “Insider,” he was like Lon Chaney aka The Man of Thousand Faces because friends of mine in the media who cover Wall Street had never heard of him until he started doing seminars. He was a trial attorney in Florida from 1977 until 1993 and by his own admission to me when I attended his seminar in Orlando last May, has not done any litigation work since then.

He preaches that, “homeowners can walk into a foreclosure hearing and walk out owning their house free and clear.” (Page 5, Garfield Continuum Handbook)

He even preaches this on his website and it is over-simplified comments like this that draw people to his website looking for easy answers. Like a late night televangelist, Garfield delivers a lot of what on the surface appears to be easy solutions but in reality are very complex legal arguments. Unfortunately, for the homeowner, foreclosure defense is not easy. It is a lot of painstaking detective work and TILA rescissions happen in only one of out of 50-75 loans.

Neil Garfield’s theories make for great legal debate and table talk for foreclosure defense junkies and conspiracy theorists. However, in reality his theories are impractical for the average homeowner due to the astronomical fees of legal research and litigation that they would require. What Neil Garfield fails to understand or express to his seminar participants is that judges do not like going out on the proverbial limb and therefore will not make precedent making decisions.

In other words, Neil Garfield is great at talking the talk but is a little short on walking the walk. He lacks the practical litigation experience to transform his theories into reality. Even now if you read his blogs, attorneys as well as Pro Se litigants who are frequent contributors phrase their comments as if expressing opinion instead of fact.

Garfield has created a problem in judicial foreclosure states such as Florida. He has unleashed an army of Pro Se litigants who have clogged the courts trying to argue their foreclosure cases using theories they barely understand. They lack not only legal expertise but lending expertise. They are totally unprepared to argue their own cases and fail to learn or obey court procedure. Many of them go in to court trying to argue constitutional law or TILA and find themselves summarily dismissed by a judge. They then write comments on the blogosphere claiming the judicial system is corrupt and that corruption is a result of some mass government conspiracy.

What the Garfield seminars fail to express to these litigants is that foreclosure laws vary from state to state and if you are fortunate enough to live in a judicial state like Florida or New York, judges want to hear state statute not federal statute unless it is relevant to your case.

This also creates another problem for the court system. The problem consists of the homeowners who have been successful in getting their foreclosures postponed. Fed by what they read on Living Lies, these pro se litigants begin having delusions of grandeur and begin believing they are the next Alan Dershowitz or Gerry Spence. They begin dispensing legal advice on the internet. The reality is, it was not the Gospel of Neil Garfield or the Pro Se litigant’s superior linguistic or legal abilities that got the foreclosure postponed but forces beyond the homeowner’s control.

In his 683 page handbook which is riddled with errors, he claims, “Neil has come out of retirement with one purpose in mind – to do all he can to counter the effects of the mortgage meltdown and save the people and the country from the disaster of created by free money using derivative securities that not even experts understood and targeting the least sophisticated members of society.”
This may sound charitable, but don’t believe the hype. At the end of the day, it’s all about the Bejamins. Garfield and his partner Brad Keiser use these seminars to market future consulting work and forensic audits from law firms and Pro Se litigants that attend their conferences.

Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with people making money and I don’t have a problem with the fees Garfield and Kaiser charge their clients, I do have an issue with what they preach and how they manage the expectations of what they preach to the average homeowner. This industry is filled with enough wannabe Elmer Gantrys or messianic types with no practical mortgage industry experience and the last thing it needs is to encourage more unqualified “healers” to come into this business which is what Garfield and Keiser are doing.

0diggsdigg

Share/Save

Filed under Mortgage Fraud News, Steve’s Blog · Tagged with avoiding foreclosure, banking, consumer protection, economic meltdown, financial crisis, florida foreclosures, foreclosure crisis, foreclosure defense, foreclosure help, foreclosure rescue, foreclosure rescue scams, Housing Crisis, illegal foreclosures, Living Lies, mortgage backed securities, mortgage fraud, mortgage help, mortgages, Neil Garfield

Comments

15 Responses to “Debunking the Gospel of Garfield”

KevinG says:

April 9, 2010 at 11:46 pm

Steve, I’m just an average guy with properties that are upside down like alot of my friends whom I network with here in Las Vegas. Like Florida, Vegas has been hard hit with foreclosures. The State Fight Fraud Task Force trys to keep up with the foreclosure ‘consultants’ and even passed legistlation requiring registration and licensing. But, many innocent, ignorant and desperate homeowners are still being SCAMMED on a regular basis. Self procalimed ‘Experts’ like Garfield tend to flourish in ecomonic times like this.

I have attended at least four local meetings her in Vegas that all pitch slight variations on Garfields approach to ‘fighting back’ with the tools he provides from ‘Living Lies’. I’ve met with an attorney listed as a reference for one of these companies who represents homeowers in predatory lending situations…he was not the least positive about the outcome. On the other hand, I’ve met with 60+ people in a $2,000,000 home with the owner who shared his personal experience in using this ‘Administrative Process’ to reconvey his property back into his name (I’m still trying to get eyes on proof of this claim). Every week I hear from somebody who’s considering trying this Living Lies strategy…mainly out of desperation.

I’ve seen the paperwork and process and the claims, claims and more claims…but no proof as you say. I’ve even started to document this investigation to help inform and warn others like the gray haired lady and her elderly husband who asked at one of these meetings…”If I am already in the Foreclosure Process will your methods effect my credit rating?” That really sadden me to think that people really don’t know what they’re getting themselves into.

I have looked for others in Nevada who can validate, proof positive, that Neils methods will work in Nevada. So far, I haven’t found anyone…except those who CLAIM sucess.

His methods are also being combined with what’s called ‘Accepted for Value” …A4V for short. As I understand it, this involves paying your debts from your “Treasury Account” that is based upon your Birth Certificate. I’ve heard so many claims about this for paying credit cards, mortgages, etc. it’s amazing how much buzz there is about this. But, as I say again…how can the average guy or gal validate an of this with the IRS and Treasury Dept?

Tonight is the first time I came upon your blog…based upon a search I googled for Neil Garfield. I have yet another meeting with yet another person making claims that they helped people by using the LIVING LIES principles.

The report I am writing entitiled “Mortgage Elimination Education – Fact or Fiction” could use the input by someone with better creditials than mine. If you know of anyone … hint…hint… in Nevada whom I may confer with I would appreciate hearing from anyone both pro or con.
skeptical-optimist-1 says:

April 10, 2010 at 12:38 am

I also heard of a few others ‘educating’ people.

Any comments would be appreciated.
admin says:

April 10, 2010 at 5:00 am

I have picked up on your hint. Feel free to contact me at the phone number on the website or send me over anything you would like my opinion on.

From what I’ve seen with the “Accepted For Value” programs (it also goes by different names) is that it is essentially the same thing as those Money Merge Accounts scams that were floating around about three years ago. It’s the BS but in a different package.
Capt. Jack says:

April 10, 2010 at 1:09 pm

I’m not here to defend Neil Garfield or Brad Kaiser or the Livinglies website. I am here to question how you differentiate yourself from them.

Where is your resume? Is everyone doomed without your service? Surely you are not suggesting you are the only one with the skills to defend against fraud.
Capt. Jack says:

April 10, 2010 at 2:03 pm

What is the policy here on posting links? I see that mine were “trimmed” but others are allowed!

Very revealing!
admin says:

April 10, 2010 at 2:10 pm

There are several big difference between what I do and what Neil Garfield and Brad Keiser do. First, I don’t encourage people to play Perry Mason without a law degree. I will not take a client on unless they have either retained a attorney or have spoken to an attorney before they hire me to tear apart their mortgage. Matter of fact, I won’t do business with pro se litigants because of the problems they create. They exacerbate the problem of their foreclosure because they read on the internet that foreclosure defense is easy and they can simply walk into foreclosure hearing and walk out with a free house. Here’s a perfect example from the client I mentioned in the article. In his answer that he copied and pasted off Living Lies, he accused the Lender of violating “Florida mini-FTC laws”. This was actually in the sample Neil and Brad had on the website. There is a huge problem with this because Florida never called the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (Florida Statute 501) a “Florida Mini-FTC”. Neil Garfield being a member of the Florida Bar and licensed attorney should know this.

Second, I don’t give my clients false expectations of what the outcome will be. Myself and the attorneys I work with (4 have gone to a Garfield seminar) all give the client realistic expectations of what to expect if they fight their foreclosure. The attorney also explains to them any alternatives, they feel may be better for the client.

I not saying and I never said foreclosure victims are doomed if they don’t use my services. I said the problem I have with what Neil Garfield and Brad Keiser do is that they do not manage the expectations of their clients or their readers. There are other companies out there doing excellent work. I will even bring on competitors to help me on files. If we are successful on file like Cindi Dixon (who operates Mela Capital Group) and I were on the Cirigliano file, I have no problem sharing the accolades or the credit.
admin says:

April 10, 2010 at 2:12 pm

Your post was “trimmed” because you were plugging your sites. The links were the only things removed.
Alina says:

April 10, 2010 at 3:30 pm

admin,

There is an old Texas saying – load your brain before you shoot off your mouth.

Above you state that Florida does not have a mini-FTC statute. First let me begin by enlightening you. Every state’s UDAP statute is patterned after the FTC, therefore they are commonly referred to as the mini-FTC. If you want to proof of this, I have plenty of case law I can send to you. It appears from your statement and also from your disclaimer on the right of this site that you are not an attorney. But yet, you believe you have the right to negatively comment on an attorney’s work.

The homeowner in your story was unprepared. He copied and pasted something for which he was not versed in. However, this is in no way Neil’s or Brad’s fault. The Living Lies site should be used as a starting point. From there every homeowner should be taxed with the duty to research their own state’s laws, rules, statutes. The site have a vast amount of invaluable information.

Alina
endGOVTwaste says:

April 10, 2010 at 3:41 pm

This contradicts the MFI-Miami blogpost that appears above this one. There’s no way the courts are being clogged up by homeowners – the ones that know their rights and choose to defend themselves are few and far between. Comrad, you should embrace the fact that Mr. Garfield has enlightened many… for you to edit “snippets” of his site and brand him as an alarmist converting the masses into pro se litigants is completely BUNK. I think it is merely an attempt to use his name to further your stat counter!

When I search your name I find the article “Steve Dibert at MFI-Mod Squad Leaves Consumers Confused” & “Another Smart & Feisty Chick Doesn’t Take Any Crap From Martin Andelman, Steve Dibert or Aaron Krowne.” But this doesn’t mean I would go out and spread bad words about you and your company.

So what to do… post my comment and reply to me or delete my comment. I guess we’ll see what happens. Take care and please, lets try & stick together. We need all the help we can get (HB 1523).
admin says:

April 10, 2010 at 3:56 pm

Alina,
I didn’t say Florida didn’t have it’s own version of an FTC law, I said it’s not called “Mini-FTC” and no one in the legal profession here in Florida calls it that. I know because 90% of my business comes from law firms. They refer to as FS 501 or FDUTP. Again, the problem is that the majority of people who read that site substitute it for bona fide legal advice. As I told the other person who wrote a comment, I get 6-10 phone calls a week saying, “I read on Living Lies, I can do. . .” and usually followed by some theory the courts have already shot down. It’s usually some person with no legal training that thinks he’s Gerry Spence or Alan Dershowitz.
admin says:

April 10, 2010 at 4:26 pm

I haven’t seen that article. It was probably written by Erin Baldwin who was a self-proclaimed “fraud fighter” because she couldn’t qualify for a modification and lost her house. I later exposed her for being a scam and being mentally unbalanced. If not, it was Krista Railey who is a friend of everyone’s favorite ex-convict and illegal mod company operator Moe Bedard, who was mad because the three of us said nice things about a mod company she was hell bent on taking down.

I do agree about HB 1523. We need to put pressure on the Florida legislature to vote no on HB 1523. I will be posting an article about it Monday or Tuesday. Feel free to cut paste the information from the article. I’m also going to make up flyers people can print out and pass out in their neighborhoods. I have a call into some trial lawyers who are going to help. I will also spread the word with my friends in the Florida media next week as well.
ppulatie says:

April 10, 2010 at 6:37 pm

I work with attorneys in CA, doing examinations. I have many of the same concerns as Steve. To give all an idea:

1. Garfield talks about the “2nd Yield Spread Premium” paid to lenders. The YSP is based upon the purchase price of the bonds, and also when the interest rate changes on a adjustable rate loan. There is no potential way that these differences could ever be considered YSP and need to be disclosed.

YSP is a payment to a broker for placing a borrower into a higher interest rate than what they were qualified for. It is a required disclosure.

When a lender sells a loan, if they receive a “YSP”, it is not a requirement for disclosure. This “YSP” has occurred after the sell, so how could it be disclosed anyway?

When bonds are sold, that is a completely different transaction, and cannot be considered a YSP. Those would fall under Security Laws, anyway, and not TILA or RESPA.

2. In his seminars, Garfield quotes 226.34, the section that covers the requirement of the lender to determine the ability of the borrower to repay the loan. This sounds great, unless one knows that statute. 226.34 ONLY applies to HOEPA loans, of which there are very few done. It does not apply to 99% of the loans that were done. I see attorneys file complaints with 226.34 alleged, and I can immediately sees the flaws in the arguments. This should get tossed, if the lenders have competent attorneys.

BTW, most attorneys and even auditors do not realize that the “CAP” on the interest rate is not to be used in determining HOEPA violations. It is the Fully Amortized Rate.

3. Garfield and others have made representations that the securitization of the Note changes the character of the Note and that it might make the loan no longer forecloseable. Under CA Uniform Commercial Code, and I suspect most others, the Code covers this and allows for such foreclosures.

4. Most of the cases that are posted on the website are preliminary rulings or they are the initial complaints. As such, they have not generally would their way through appeal, and until they do so, the cases are not much use.

5. Garfield does not really expound upon the fact that case law is jurisdictional, and what might work in one jurisdiction, would not work in another.

6. Foreclosure law is state specific. And Non-Judicial v Judicial foreclosures are completely different animals.

7. The Countrywide/B of A Class Action in Washington that Garfield posted, has major issues with the complaint. It alleges violations of HAMP. I tried to point out these issues, with regard to the fact that HAMP does not guarantee a loan modification, nor is there likely a Private Right of Action, among other issues. Furthermore, many of the claimants in the action would not qualify for HAMP, but unless the attorneys fully understand this, and only a few do, then it will pose issues for determining Class members. Garfield deleted my post for this. This occurs each and every time that I right something contradictory to what he writes.

Garfied also deleted my post ragarding a case that Max Gardner, the BK attorney posted. Gardner made mention when “MERS transfers the Note”. I called him out on this and suggested that either Gardner “mis-wrote” or he was in error. The reason is that MERS does not transfer a Note. The Note is endorsed, usually in blank, and transferred by the original lender to the Trust. MERS only transfers the Deed. (I also explained other issues that could be exploited.)

Well, that post was deleted as well. And Gardner’s comments have not been corrected. If Garfield is not willing to correct false or incorrect information, then what good is he?

8. Most attorneys that I know who went to his seminar in CA, also say that much of his info is useless, if not garbage.

9. He promotes seminars, whereby he will train people in forensic analysis and expert witness testimony in just a couple of days. This is pure bunk. There is too much to know and understand in just a couple of days. The concepts and the statutes and case law are just too complicated. Especially so when you consider California, whereby one court will rule one way, and another court will rule the opposite, both in the same day, and the merits are the same.

Expert Witness? That is a joke. There are only a few people I know that are competent to be an expert witness. And those people have no desire to be one. That is because the “true auditor” can look at a file and see not just lender fraud, but also broker fraud and borrower fraud. The lenders that know what I do would love to get me on the stand because they know that I would be able to also indict most borrowers, if questioned correctly. That is why each of my Predatory Lending Exams, I provide the attorney a separate Comment Sheet, apart from the Exam, which details the other issues and how the lender will discredit the borrower.

I do not do Pro Se litigants either. They end up wanting me to act as an attorney for them, and I am not one and do not pretend to be. It is just that over 30 months of doing this, I understand how CA courts work, and what works in the court and does not.

When a homeowner calls, I will talk with them a bit, to find out what is going on. I then refer them to an attorney. I will not work with a homeowner without an attorney who litigates. I will not work with attorneys who simply do loan modifications. I do not contact lenders, servicers or other entities, because under CA law, I then become a foreclosure consultant. I have been checked out twice by the CA DRE and both times, they have concluded that I am doing things “right” and in accordance with CA law.

I make no representations about what I do and what it can accomplish. In fact, I tell people that there are no guarantees about what will occur. The best that can be hoped for is to bring the lender to the table for a loan modification. There will be no principal reductions, or getting homes for free. Better to be realistic, that give them false hopes.

That said, I am working with three different Class Action law firms, to attack lenders on specific items I have discovered. These are very narrow issues, and are designed to prevent Federal Preemption arguments, but they do have a Private Right to Action. These will be interesting to see what happens. They won’t help everyone, but they will help many.

I know that the Garfield followers will likely not care for what I write. But, it is time to address the issues and let the chips fall where they do. I am tired of the blatant misrepresentations or errors by so many people who claim to be “auditors” and other foreclosure assistance personnel. Unfortunately, there are too many “scam artists” out there, epecially in CA, and no, I am not calling Garfield a scam artist, and are just preying on homeowners in trouble.
Elvis says:

April 11, 2010 at 5:39 pm

Steve
Really…the axe you are grinding with Garfield and Keiser just discredits you. First, like you I have attended the Lawyers seminar. They both are very clear that their target audience is Lawyers and that homeowners need to have “competent” local counsel and the objective of their seminars is to surface competent lawyers willing to take foreclosure defense cases that homeowners can be referred to, since you are not a lawyer you may not have picked up on this… So your whole diatribe that they have “unleashed an army of Pro Se litigants” is patently false.

I have followed the blog for sometime and I know you used to post frequently and include the link to your site to solicit “loan audit” business.

Essentially, you were “trolling” the Livinglies site for customers for loan audits. Since you say you have four lawyers that you work for that have attended the Garfield seminar, I can only assume you like many other “loan auditors” (including Mr. Pulatie who posts here)have also used the list of lawyers posted to benefit homeowners the site as a prospect list to solicit business. Just curious have you ever sent a dollar of donation to the Livinglies blog site? I bet not. I have.

If homeowners cannot find competent lawyers to represent them and have to go Pro Se and use the internet, well you have to admit the Livinglies site is a good resource for them. The fact is there are not enough lawyers to serve the homeowners that need help, but like “loan auditors” there are even more lawyers that will take homeowners money an DO NOTHING…because they don’t know what to do.

So really this whole article is misguided, Garfield and Keiser have as another poster here commented “enlighted” thousands, maybe hundred of thousands to the reality of the fraud taking place with these foreclosures, helped many lawyers and homeowners who they will probably never meet and you want to take issue with “snippets” of their materials. Really we all need to work together. I do have to hand it to you if this was a strategy to increase the stats/hits on your website its not a bad angle. If you have the “nads” to actually allow this comment to be posted, then good for you. If not you will be confirming that you are just another fringe player out there trying to leverage Livinglies and the work that Garfield and Keiser have done to enlighten the marketplace and homeowners to the facts for your own benefit.(I think you used the term “its all about the Benjamins”)

Oh and by the way a recent post on Livinglies re: “Produce the Note is Not Enough” kind of contradicts your point that Garfield originated that angle…it was April Charney long before Garfield came along, I like to give credit where credit is due…but since you only started your business a little less than two years ago you may have not known that…did you by chance attend their Forensic Mortgage Analysis Workshop a couple weeks ago? I talked to a couple folks who did and they were very impressed and felt it was worth the money. I am just hoping they will do one in the East sometime soon.

Hopefully you actually allow this comment to be posted…if not I understand your agenda.

Truth
admin says:

April 11, 2010 at 6:35 pm

Elvis,

First, I don’t have an “axe to grind” against Neil and Brad. If you actually read the article you would have known that. You and other Neil Garfield Groupies make a lot of assumptions about how I run my business, how I market my company and my motivations. I find it interesting all of you want to question my testicular fortitude but none of you have the spine to post your real names on these posts.

Besides, I really don’t need to start a blog war with Neil Garfield to increase my SEO. I get plenty of traffic from the exposure I get from international media. I find it interesting that the people helping drive traffic to this site are the upset Garfield Groupies who keep pasting the link and spreading it around.

Those quotes where from his handbook were not “snippets.” They were the actual quotes from his hand book. Look at both page 4 and 5 of his handbook.

Tell you what, if you can show me 5 cases of a pro se litigants who were awarded a free and clear title to their home using the what they learned at a Garfield seminar without the help of a lawyer, I will retract the article.

Also, why would I “donate” to a website that is clearly a marketing tool for a for-profit venture. Does that mean I should ask you for an $11 donation for my Go Daddy bill next month?
ppulatie says:

April 11, 2010 at 7:27 pm

For the record, I do not recommend any attorneys from the Neil Garfield website. Heck, most of those who attended the CA seminars quickly understood that CA law is different from Florida, and what works in Florida does not work in Ca. I only accept work from attorneys who I interview, and know that they will do good work. I work for very few attorneys as a result, because most attorneys really haven’t got past the first three months of a learning curve that is needed in CA.

CA Civil Code 2924 is considered “exhaustive” and as such, Produce the Note does not work. 2924 has no requirement. Nor do other arguments that Garfield talks about.

I will say that I was more than happy to see that Garfield did write recently about using reasonable arguments and not theories that courts were not ready for. But prior to that post, he had never mentioned such before, and so large numbers of homeowners were led astray. I know, because I have read the complaints filed by these Pro Se litigants, and I have talked with large numbers on the phone. That is a major reason why I do not do retail audits, and only work through attorneys.

BTW, the post previous to this one was the very first one I had ever done on this website. I only respond to your post to explain that I do not work with attorneys on Garfield’s list.

Also, I should note that I do not do audits outside of CA and a couple of other states. That is because the laws are so different and the case law per state takes months to really understand. To be proficient in other states, a person must understand what is going on and tailor the exam to what the courts in that state will accept. Otherwise, the exam is a waste of money. That is why I have consistently turned down offers to take my operation nationwide.

Also, I have found that to train an examiner, it takes at least a year of very hard work and effort. It is not about plugging information into a software program, as most so called auditors do. It is about understanding the statutes, the lending process, underwriting process, and knowing and keeping up to date on case law. As well, it is an intuitive feel for what happens in the loan process.

That is why I differentiate my operations from others. I don’t do forensic audits. I do Predatory Lending Exams. That is far beyond what all but a few companies will ever do, because they don’t understand the full process. Most were former loan officers who decided to jump into this business long after people like Steve and I developed it. They never took the time to learn the law, go into court and watch what happened, and they never tried to read the case law and understand how it related to loans.

And that is why, when I start working with knowledgeable attorneys, they come back time and again.

foreclosure out of control

Foreclosure Paperwork Scandal ‘Same Process’ That Fed The Housing Bubble

Foreclosure Crisis Has Disproportionately Affected African-Americans, Study Says

Nervous Insurer Halts New Policies Over Foreclosure Docs

Maria Foscarinis, 10.04.2010

Founder and executive director, National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty

Human habitat is a broad term. But no matter the definition, it includes a safe, secure place to live: a home.

Read Post | Comments

Homeowner Activists and Attorneys Vindicated After Years of Being Ignored

Richard Zombeck, 10.04.2010

Eyes and Ears Mortgage Specialist and ShametheBanks.org Founder

Recent news of blatant fraud on the part of mortgage lenders and servicers has offered proof that homeowner activists’ actions have not been in vain.

Read Post | Comments (19)

While We Are On the Subject of Bad Foreclosures, What About HAMP’s Compliance?

Anna Cuevas, 10.02.2010

The American public is losing countless homes due to non-compliance in procedures and incorrect answers being given to homeowners. You must be your own best advocate and question authority.

Read Post | Comments (27)

The Big Squeeze — Unwitting Tenants Caught Between Defaulting Owners and the Banks

Gary Stein, 09.30.2010

Health Reform Advocate

An interesting by-product of any downturn in an economy is that you can categorize the stakeholders into four categories — victims, users, scavengers and survivors.

Read Post | Comments

Profiles in Doing Both: The Resiliency of the American Real Estate Agent

Inder Sidhu, 09.30.2010

Senior Vice President of Strategy and Planning for Worldwide Operations at Cisco

If you’re one of the 11 million Americans who owe more on their mortgages than their properties are worth, the last person you probably want to hear f…

Read Post | Comments

THE WEASEL BLINKS

Alfred Gingold, 09.29.2010

Writer, actor

Readers of my recent posts know that my wife and I are locked in combat with our mortgage bank, which persists in creating false penalties to add to o…

Read Post | Comments

Fight Brewing Over the Best Law You’ve Never Heard of

Preeti Vissa, 09.28.2010

Community Reinvestment Director, The Greenlining Institute

What if there was a law that told big corporations that they have responsibilities to the communities they serve? There is. It’s called the Community Reinvestment Act and a fight over it’s future is brewing in Congress.

Read Post | Comments

Will the Fed’s Zero Rate Policy Bring Another Speculative Bubble?

Jeffrey Rubin, 09.28.2010

Economist

If the Fed is blaming the last recession on the financial meltdown from the subprime mortgage market, why is it keeping interest rates effectively at zero, which could recreate those same credit conditions?

Read Post | Comments (10)

The Final HUD OIG Report on AHCOA

Mike Shea, 10.04.2010

Executive Director of Affordable Housing Centers of America

The Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Office of the Inspector General (HUD OIG) has issued a final report evaluating the use of grant fund…

Read Post | Comments

What Wall Street Thinks of Wall Street

Danny Groner, 09.26.2010

Video Editor/Online Assistant Editor at TheWeek.com

With movie critics split on the film, here’s a look at what Wall Street’s real bankers — and those who cover them — had to say about the movie, its 1987 original, and the larger-than-life Gordon Gekko.

Read Post | Comments

I Know Firsthand That When Mortgage Banks Compete, You’re Screwed

Jane White, 09.24.2010

Author, America, Welcome to the Poorhouse

Until we get Democrats in office who work for the electorate, we can’t count on legislation to mandate plain-English disclosure, or better yet, prohibit irresponsible lending so disclosure won’t be necessary.

Read Post | Comments (24)

A LETTER TO JAMIE DIMON

Alfred Gingold, 09.23.2010

Writer, actor

Readers of my last Chase Home Weasel Update on Huffpo know that we are four weeks past the talk with the Tax Department’s dulcet JoAnne, during which …

Read Post | Comments

Michelle Obama’s Mortgage

Sunil Adam, 09.22.2010

Editor, “The Indian American”

…

Read Post | Comments

Reagan’s Welfare Queen has Morphed into the Health Care Queen

Howard Steven Friedman, 09.22.2010

Statistician/Economist for International Organization; Columbia University

Welfare Queens are portrayed as lazy leeches on society, pilfering money from “hard working people’s taxes.” In any large group, some will take advantage of the system, but that doesn’t mean the system should be abolished.

Read Post | Comments

Weekly Audit: Can Elizabeth Warren Save the Economy?

The Media Consortium, 09.21.2010

Network of Leading Progressive Independent Journalism Organizations

by Zach Carter, Media Consortium blogger President Barack Obama’s decision to appoint Elizabeth Warren to set up the new Consumer Financial Protection…

Read Post | Comments

Low Credit Scores Challenge Recovery in Illinois Communities of Color, but All Is Not Lost

Dory Rand, 09.17.2010

President, Woodstock Institute

Over half of the people in Illinois’ predominantly African-American communities likely would not qualify for low-cost, prime credit. What does this mean for these neighborhoods’ chances for revitalization?

Read Post | Comments (10)

One in Seven Live in Poverty — and Counting

Maria Foscarinis, 09.16.2010

Founder and executive director, National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty

This number reflects a record increase in poverty over the previous year. But it does not capture many of those who are suffering the most: homeless Americans.

Read Post | Comments

Expanded Mortgage Disclosure Through HMDA Reform Would Detect Discrimination, Unsustainable Loans

Dory Rand, 09.16.2010

President, Woodstock Institute

HMDA is a crucial tool in the fight against discriminatory lending, but the data currently collected is not sensitive enough to detect some of the problematic practices that triggered the foreclosure crisis.

Read Post | Comments

Judith Sandalow: Politicians Are Failing An Entire Generation Of Children

Diane Tucker, 09.26.2010

Writer/producer/director living in Washington DC

In the shadow of the White House, nearly 45,000 American children live in poverty, a number that has been soaring since 2007. The District of Columbia…

Read Post | Comments (13)

Fixing America’s Broken Housing Market

Joseph E. Stiglitz, 09.15.2010

Professor at Columbia University and a Nobel Laureate in Economics

The Obama administration’s reluctant and belated recognition that its efforts to get the housing and mortgage markets working again have largely failed.

A Visit To A Loan Modification Marathon

BofA Exec Signed But Didn’t Read Up To 8,000 Foreclosure Papers Per Month

Cautious Homeowners Not Seduced By Record-Low Interest Rates

Mortgage Rates Low: Level Matches Lowest In Decades

‘Club Fed’: The Cozy Ties Between Fed And Big Investors

Click on the links below for individual wrongful foreclosure stories.

Bank of America’s unfunny foreclosure tricks

Repossession hell: 6 extremely ‘wrongful’ foreclosures

Bank of America Sued for Foreclosing on Wrong Homes

House “trashed out” that Michigan couple paid cash for

Kentucky man sues after bank takes wrong house

Bank of America Pocketed Insurance Proceeds for Gas Explosion, Then Attempts Foreclosure on Home Anyway

Foreclosures go wrong as lenders, clean-up crews cut legal corners

Pittsburgh area woman with paid-up mortgage says bank “repossessed” property, damaged furniture, confiscated pet parrot

Bank of America forecloses on house that Massachusetts couple paid cash for

Texas doctor says bank seized house he owns free and clear, turned off utilities and left him with 75 pounds of spoiled fish

Bank Tries To Foreclose on Owned Home in California

Fort Lauderdale man’s home sold out from under him in foreclosure mistake

Click on the links below for overviews of the foreclosure crisis.

Caught in a pile of paper – the foreclosure crisis rages on

The looting of America continues

Bank of America Exec Signed, but Didn’t Read Up to 8,000 Foreclosure Papers Per Month

A Crack in Wall Street’s Foreclosure Pipeline

While We Are on the Subject of Bad Foreclosures, What About HAMP’s Compliance?

Fannie And Freddie’s Foreclosure Barons

Bank of America to Freeze Foreclosure Cases

fraud factories in foreclosure

FDCPA — Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

Posted on June 29, 2009 by Neil Garfield

Don’t get misled by titles. The wording of the statute clearly uses “verification” not validation. Verification generally means some sworn document or affidavit. This means when you contest the debt under FDCPA (in addition to sending a QWR) the party who is supposedly collecting or enforcing the debt has a duty to “obtain verification”. And that means they can’t verify it themselves unless they are the actual lender. And the statutes says pretty clearly that they must give the lenders name and contact information — past and present. STRATEGY: IF THEY SUPPLY SUCH A DOCUMENT, PICK UP THE PHONE AND SPEAK WITH THE PERSON WHO SIGNED IT.I CAN PRACTICALLY GUARANTEE THEY WILL DISCLAIM EVERYTHING THAT WAS IN IT AND POSSIBLY EVEN THAT THEY SIGNED IT.

15 U.S.C. 1692 ———–

FDCPA

Salient provisions affecting foreclosures:

§ 1692. Congressional findings and declaration of purpose

Abusive practices

There is abundant evidence of the use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices by many debt collectors. Abusive debt collection practices contribute to the number of personal bankruptcies, to marital instability, to the loss of jobs, and to invasions of individual privacy.
(b) Inadequacy of laws
Existing laws and procedures for redressing these injuries are inadequate to protect consumers.

(4) The term “creditor” means any person who offers or extends credit creating a debt or to whom a debt is owed, but such term does not include any person to the extent that he receives an assignment or transfer of a debt in default solely for the purpose of facilitating collection of such debt for another.
(5) The term “debt” means any obligation or alleged obligation of a consumer to pay money arising out of a transaction in which the money, property, insurance, or services which are the subject of the transaction are primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, whether or not such obligation has been reduced to judgment.
The term “debt collector” means any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another. Notwithstanding the exclusion provided by clause (F) of the last sentence of this paragraph, the term includes any creditor who, in the process of collecting his own debts, uses any name other than his own which would indicate that a third person is collecting or attempting to collect such debts.

§ 1692g. Validation of debts

(a) Notice of debt; contents
Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing—
(1) the amount of the debt;
(2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed;
(3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector;
(4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and
(5) a statement that, upon the consumer’s written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.
(b) Disputed debts
If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) of this section that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector. Collection activities and communications that do not otherwise violate this subchapter may continue during the 30-day period referred to in subsection (a) unless the consumer has notified the debt collector in writing that the debt, or any portion of the debt, is disputed or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor. Any collection activities and communication during the 30-day period may not overshadow or be inconsistent with the disclosure of the consumer’s right to dispute the debt or request the name and address of the original creditor.
(c) Admission of liability
The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer.
(d) Legal pleadings
A communication in the form of a formal pleading in a civil action shall not be treated as an initial communication for purposes of subsection (a).
§ 1692j. Furnishing certain deceptive forms

(a) It is unlawful to design, compile, and furnish any form knowing that such form would be used to create the false belief in a consumer that a person other than the creditor of such consumer is participating in the collection of or in an attempt to collect a debt such consumer allegedly owes such creditor, when in fact such person is not so participating.
Any person who violates this section shall be liable to the same extent and in the same manner as a debt collector is liable under section 1692k of this title for failure to comply with a provision of this subchapter.

§ 1692k. Civil liability

(a) Amount of damages
Except as otherwise provided by this section, any debt collector who fails to comply with any provision of this subchapter with respect to any person is liable to such person in an amount equal to the sum of—
(1) any actual damage sustained by such person as a result of such failure;
(2)
(A) in the case of any action by an individual, such additional damages as the court may allow, but not exceeding $1,000; or
(B) in the case of a class action, (i) such amount for each named plaintiff as could be recovered under subparagraph (A), and (ii) such amount as the court may allow for all other class members, without regard to a minimum individual recovery, not to exceed the lesser of $500,000 or 1 per centum of the net worth of the debt collector; and
(3) in the case of any successful action to enforce the foregoing liability, the costs of the action, together with a reasonable attorney’s fee as determined by the court. On a finding by the court that an action under this section was brought in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment, the court may award to the defendant attorney’s fees reasonable in relation to the work expended and costs.
(b) Factors considered by court
In determining the amount of liability in any action under subsection (a) of this section, the court shall consider, among other relevant factors—
(1) in any individual action under subsection (a)(2)(A) of this section, the frequency and persistence of noncompliance by the debt collector, the nature of such noncompliance, and the extent to which such noncompliance was intentional; or
(2) in any class action under subsection (a)(2)(B) of this section, the frequency and persistence of noncompliance by the debt collector, the nature of such noncompliance, the resources of the debt collector, the number of persons adversely affected, and the extent to which the debt collector’s noncompliance was intentional.
(c) Intent
A debt collector may not be held liable in any action brought under this subchapter if the debt collector shows by a preponderance of evidence that the violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such error.
(d) Jurisdiction
An action to enforce any liability created by this subchapter may be brought in any appropriate United States district court without regard to the amount in controversy, or in any other court of competent jurisdiction, within one year from the date on which the violation occurs.
(e) Advisory opinions of Commission
No provision of this section imposing any liability shall apply to any act done or omitted in good faith in conformity with any advisory opinion of the Commission, notwithstanding that after such act or omission has occurred, such opinion is amended, rescinded, or determined by judicial or other authority to be invalid for any reason.

§ 1692n. Relation to State laws

This subchapter does not annul, alter, or affect, or exempt any person subject to the provisions of this subchapter from complying with the laws of any State with respect to debt collection practices, except to the extent that those laws are inconsistent with any provision of this subchapter, and then only to the extent of the inconsistency. For purposes of this section, a State law is not inconsistent with this subchapter if the protection such law affords any consumer is greater than the protection provided by this subchapter.

§ 1692o. Exemption for State regulation

The Commission shall by regulation exempt from the requirements of this subchapter any class of debt collection practices within any State if the Commission determines that under the law of that State that class of debt collection practices is subject to requirements substantially similar to those imposed by this subchapter, and that there is adequate provision for enforcement.

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) has long been ignored by the mortgage servicing and foreclosure industry, which have thought of the law as designed to arrest the abusive behavior of bill collectors, such as the late night phone calls and the harassing letters to the debtor’s place of business. In fact, it is a law whose impact is beginning to be felt throughout the mortgage industry. The FDCPA is a federal law, first enacted in 1977. For years, the FDCPA was enforced through litigation by consumers that was outside the context of the mortgage foreclosure. However, the FDCPA’s expansive language, as well as recent court decisions have led more industries, such as lawyers and mortgage services, to examine whether they are subject to the provisions of the FDCPA. The answer is that they often are. This article will discuss who is subject to the provisions of the FDCPA, and if subject thereto, what the compliance requirements are, and finally, what the penalty provisions for violation of the FDCPA are.

There are some gray areas in the applicability of the FDCPA, but it is indisputably the law that a mortgage debt and those trying to collect upon it, in the correct circumstances, can be subject to the FDCPA. The Act applies only to debts that were incurred primarily for “personal, family or household purposes, whether or not [a debt] has been reduced to judgment.” This means that the character of the debt, i.e., consumer or non consumer, is determined by the use to which the money loaned is put. For instance, monies loaned (and secured by a deed of trust) that are invested in a business or used to purchase a commercial strip center or apartment dwelling would represent a non-consumer debt and not be subject to the FDCPA. However, if the borrower used the loaned monies to purchase his personal residence or for other personal expenses, the debt would be a consumer debt subject to the Act.

Note that the character of the debt, consumer or nonconsumer, is not determined by the type of property that is secured by the deed of trust. For example, the borrower could borrow against a commercial strip center and use the proceeds to buy groceries. Although, the commercial center is, of course, a commercial enterprise, the loaned monies were used for personal purposes and the debt is, therefore, subject to the FDCPA.

As a practical matter, of course, mortgage services and trustees will find it insufferably burdensome to have to determine the original use of the loan proceeds in every foreclosure situation. Good practice, therefore, would be to assume that all mortgage loan debt is consumer debt, unless there is certain knowledge to the contrary.

The next question for purposes of determining the applicability of the FDCPA is to ascertain whether the person communicating with the debtor is a “debt collector.” The FDCPA defines debt collector as a person engaged in a business with the principal purpose of collecting debts or who “regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed to another.” Whether you fall within the definition is crucial. If you are considered a debt collector, you are subject to all of the requirements and restrictions of the FDCPA.

The application by the courts of who is a debt collector under this definition has been growing over time. For instance, in a case decided on April 18,1995, the United States Supreme Court held that lawyers who regularly collect consumer debts, even when their collection efforts are through litigation only, are debt collectors under FDCPA. Heintz v. Jerkins 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7134 (1995). Note that those organizations that collect on their own debts are not debt collectors (other than those persons whose business’ principal purpose is debt collection). Therefore, courts have held that lenders who foreclose on their mortgage loans are not debt collectors. Olroyd v. Associates Consumer Discount Co., 863 F.2d 23 7 (D.C., E D. Penn 1994).

Creditors who take an assignment of the debt while it is in default are generally considered to be subject to FDCPA as debt collectors. Therefore, mortgage services who receive a loan prior to default are not covered as debt collectors (Penny v. Stewart Elk Co., 756 F.2d 1197 (5th Cir., 1985); rehearing granted on other grounds, 7611 F.2d 237), but mortgage services who obtained the loan while it was in default are subject to the FDCPA as debt collectors [Games v. Cavazas, 737 F.Supp. 1368 (D.C., D. Del. 1990)]. Thus, the same servicer can be a debt collector for purposes of some loans and not others.

The author has not reviewed any court decisions holding that a trustee merely performing its statutorily required acts for a nonjudicial foreclosure sale is a debt collector. However, given the increasingly expensive view of the FDCPA taken by the courts, this may be an area of future litigation, and so trustees may be well advised to examine whether their practices are in accordance with the requirements of the FDCPA.

Often, if not in the majority of cases, the trustee handling a non-judicial foreclosure is substituted onto the deed of trust after the loan falls into default. In a sense, the trustee is analogous to the mortgage servicer who obtains a loan in default. The trustee might be considered by a court at least for some of its activities, as a debt collector for purposes of the FDCPA.

The FDCPA falls under the purview of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC has promulgated Statements of General Policy and Staff Commentary on the FDCPA. In part of this commentary and particularly in other FTC staff interpretations, the FTC has stated that legally required communications to debtors in connection with judicial or non-judicial foreclosures are not “communications” within the meaning of the FDCPA. In particular, the interpretations by the FTC state that the preparation or non-judicial foreclosure notices are not debt collection activities under the Act.

Although the FTC’s comments may appear comforting to trustees, relying on the FTC’s comments may be a mistake. For instance, the FTC had taken a clear position that lawyers whose practice is limited to legal activities, are not subject to the FDCPA. The United States Supreme Court noted the FTC’s position recently in the Heintz case and specifically rejected it noting that the commentary is not binding on the FTC or the public, and the FTC’s interpretations did not properly express congressional intent as stated in the statute. Even if a court ultimately did determine that legally required communications, such as the notices of default, are not subject to the FDCPA, practically any other communications between the trustee and borrower might be covered.

Once subject to the FDCPA, a debt collector has several responsibilities and restrictions. In particular, the debt collector must give a so called “Miranda Warning” in every communication with the debtor. The warning must disclose clearly to the debtor that, “the debt collector is attempting to collect the debt,” and, “any information obtained will be used for that purpose.”

In addition to the Miranda Warning, there are general rules about communications.For instance, unless otherwise informed, the debt collector should assume that it is inconvenient to contact the debtor between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. local time. Also, if the debt collector knows the name of the debtor’s attorney or can readily obtain his name and address, the creditor must communicate only with the attorney, and address all communications only to the attorney, unless the attorney fails to respond within a reasonable period of time or consents to direct communication with the debtor. In addition, the debtor may not be contacted at his place of employment if the debt collector knows or has reason to know that the debtor’s employer prohibits the debtor from receiving such communication. There are also a number of types of communications that are considered misleading.

The FDCPA also requires that a statement be included in the initial communication with the debtor (or within 5 days of the initial communication), providing the debtor with written notice containing the following:

the amount of the debt;
the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed;
the statement that, unless the consumer, within thirty (30) days after the receipt of the notice disputes the validity of the debt or any portion there of, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector;
the statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt or any portion there of is disputed, the debt collector will obtain a verification of the debt or a copy of the judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector;
a statement that upon the consumer’s written request within the thirty day period, a debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor

Violations of the FDCPA can be severely punished. The consumer has the right to bring its own lawsuit. If the debt collector is in violation of the FDCPA, he/she may be held liable for: (1) any actual damages sustained by the consumer (including damages for mental distress, loss of employment, etc.), and, (2) such additional damages as the court may allow, but not exceeding $ 1,000.

In the case of the class action, the court may award up to $500,000 or one percent of the debt collector’s net worth, whichever is less. The statute of limitations for bringing an action under the FDCPA is one year. Because a class action award could be a significant cost to a violating debt collector, the statute does have some punitive aspects. In short, because of the continually expansive view of the coverage of the FDCPA, trustees are well advised to consult with their own courts and determine whether they should implement comprehensive practices and procedures to comply with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Duty to Maximize Net Present Value Owed to All Parties 2923.6.

2923.6. (a) The Legislature finds and declares that any duty
servicers may have to maximize net present value under their pooling and servicing agreements is
owed to all parties in a loan pool, or to all investors under a pooling and servicing agreement, not to
any particular party in the loan pool or investor under a polling and servicing agreement, and that a
servicer acts in the best interests of all parties to the loan pool or investors in the pooling and
servicing agreement if it agrees to or implements a loan modification or workout plan for which both of
the following apply:
(1) The loan is in payment default, or payment default is
reasonably foreseeable.
(2) Anticipated recovery under the loan modification or workout plan exceeds the anticipated recovery
through foreclosure on a net present value basis.
(b) It is the intent of the Legislature that the mortgagee,
beneficiary, or authorized agent offer the borrower a loan
modification or workout plan if such a modification or plan is
consistent with its contractual or other authority.
(c) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,
2013, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted
statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2013, deletes or extends that date.

The Pretender Lender says they do loan Mods but they don’t

Notice of Sale – Additional 90 Days
2923.52. (a) Notwithstanding paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of
Section 2924, a mortgagee, trustee, or other person authorized to take sale shall not give notice of sale
until at least 90 days after the lapse of three months as set forth in paragraph (2) of
subdivision (a) of Section 2924, in order to allow the parties to
pursue a loan modification to prevent foreclosure, if all of the
following conditions exist:
(1) The loan was recorded during the period of January 1, 2003, to January 1, 2008, inclusive, and is
secured by residential real property.
(2) The loan at issue is the first mortgage or deed of trust that
the property secures.
(3) The borrower occupied the property as the borrower’s principal residence at the time the loan
became delinquent.
(4) The notice of default has been recorded on the property.
(b) This section does not apply to loans serviced by a mortgage loan servicer if that mortgage loan
servicer has obtained a temporary or final order of exemption pursuant to Section 2923.53 that is
current and valid at the time the notice of sale is given.
(c) This section does not apply to loans made, purchased, or
serviced by:
(1) A California state or local public housing agency or
authority, including state or local housing finance agencies
established under Division 31 (commencing with Section 50000) of the Health and Safety Code and
Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 980) of Division 4 of the Military and Veterans Code.
(2) Loans that are collateral for securities purchased by an
agency or authority described in paragraph (1).
(d) This section shall become operative 14 days after the issuance of regulations, which shall include
the form of the application for mortgage loan servicers, by the commissioner pursuant to subdivision
(d) of Section 2923.53.(e) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2011, and as of that
date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2011, deletes or
extends that date.

Pre-Foreclosure – Required Notice and Duty to Confer with Borrower –

Pre-Foreclosure – Required Notice and Duty to Confer with Borrower –
2923.5.
(a) (1) A mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized
agent may not file a notice of default pursuant to Section 2924 until 30 days after initial contact is made
as required by paragraph (2) or 30 days after satisfying the due diligence requirements as described in
subdivision (g).
(2) A mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall contact the borrower in person or by telephone
in order to assess the borrower’s financial situation and explore options for the borrower to avoid
foreclosure. During the initial contact, the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall advise the
borrower that he or she has the right to request a subsequent meeting and, if requested, the mortgagee,
beneficiary, or authorized agent shall schedule the
meeting to occur within 14 days. The assessment of the borrower’s financial situation and discussion
of options may occur during the first contact, or at the subsequent meeting scheduled for that purpose.
In either case, the borrower shall be provided the toll-free telephone number made available by the
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to find a HUD-certified housing
counseling agency. Any meeting may occur telephonically.
(b) A notice of default filed pursuant to Section 2924 shall
include a declaration that the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent has contacted the borrower,
has tried with due diligence to contact the borrower as required by this section, or that no contact was
required pursuant to subdivision (h).
(c) If a mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent had already filed the notice of default prior to
the enactment of this section and did not subsequently file a notice of rescission, then the mortgagee,
trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall, as part of the notice of sale filed pursuant to Section
2924f, include a declaration that either:
(1) States that the borrower was contacted to assess the borrower’s financial situation and to explore
options for the borrower to avoid foreclosure.
(2) Lists the efforts made, if any, to contact the borrower in the
event no contact was made.
(d) A mortgagee’s, beneficiary’s, or authorized agent’s loss
mitigation personnel may participate by telephone during any contact required by this section.
(e) For purposes of this section, a “borrower” shall include a
mortgagor or trustor.
(f) A borrower may designate, with consent given in writing, a
HUD-certified housing counseling agency, attorney, or other advisor to discuss with the mortgagee,
beneficiary, or authorized agent, on the borrower’s behalf, the borrowers financial situation and options
for the borrower to avoid foreclosure. That contact made at the direction of the borrower shall satisfy
the contact requirements of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a). Any loan modification or workout plan
offered at the meeting by the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent is subject to approval by the
borrower.
(g) A notice of default may be filed pursuant to Section 2924 when a mortgagee, beneficiary, or
authorized agent has not contacted a borrower as required by paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) provided
that the failure to contact the borrower occurred despite the due diligence of the mortgagee,
beneficiary, or authorized agent. For purposes of this section, “due diligence” shall require and mean
all of the following:
(1) A mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall first
attempt to contact a borrower by sending a first-class letter that
includes the toll-free telephone number made available by HUD to find a HUD-certified housing
counseling agency.
(2) (A) After the letter has been sent, the mortgagee,
beneficiary, or authorized agent shall attempt to contact the
borrower by telephone at least three times at different hours and on different days. Telephone calls
shall be made to the primary telephone number on file.
(B) A mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent may attempt to contact a borrower using an automated
system to dial borrowers, provided that, if the telephone call is answered, the call is connected to a
live representative of the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent.
(C) A mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent satisfies the
telephone contact requirements of this paragraph if it determines, after attempting contact pursuant to
this paragraph, that the borrower’s primary telephone number and secondary telephone number or
numbers on file, if any, have been disconnected.
(3) If the borrower does not respond within two weeks after the telephone call requirements of
paragraph (2) have been satisfied, the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall then send a
certified letter, with return receipt requested.
(4) The mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall provide a means for the borrower to contact it
in a timely manner, including a toll-free telephone number that will provide access to a live
representative during business hours.
(5) The mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent has posted a prominent link on the homepage of its
Internet Web site, if any, to the following information:
(A) Options that may be available to borrowers who are unable to afford their mortgage payments and
who wish to avoid foreclosure, and instructions to borrowers advising them on steps to take to explore
those options.
(B) A list of financial documents borrowers should collect and be prepared to present to the mortgagee,
beneficiary, or authorized agent when discussing options for avoiding foreclosure.
(C) A toll-free telephone number for borrowers who wish to discuss options for avoiding foreclosure
with their mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent.
(D) The toll-free telephone number made available by HUD to find a HUD-certified housing counseling
agency.
(h) Subdivisions (a), (c), and (g) shall not apply if any of the
following occurs:
(1) The borrower has surrendered the property as evidenced by either a letter confirming the surrender
or delivery of the keys to the property to the mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent.
(2) The borrower has contracted with an organization, person, or entity whose primary business is
advising people who have decided to leave their homes on how to extend the foreclosure process and
avoid their contractual obligations to mortgagees or beneficiaries.
(3) A case has been filed by the borrower under Chapter 7, 11, 12, or 13 of Title 11 of the United States
Code and the bankruptcy court has not entered an order closing or dismissing the bankruptcy case, or
granting relief from a stay of foreclosure.
(i) This section shall apply only to mortgages or deeds of trust
recorded from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2007, inclusive, that are secured by owner-occupied
residential real property containing no more than four dwelling units. For purposes of this subdivision,
“owner-occupied” means that the residence is the principal residence of the borrower as indicated to
the lender in loan documents.
(j) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,
2013, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted
statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2013, deletes or extends that date.

Mortgage Broker duty defined

Broker’s Duty to Borrower
2923.1.
(a) A mortgage broker providing mortgage brokerage services to a borrower is the fiduciary of the
borrower, and any violation of the broker’s fiduciary duties shall be a violation of the mortgage broker’s
license law. This fiduciary duty includes a requirement that the mortgage broker place the economic
interest of the borrower ahead of his or her own economic interest. A mortgage broker who provides
mortgage brokerage services to the borrower owes this fiduciary duty to the borrower regardless of
whether the mortgage broker is acting as an agent for any other party in connection with the residential
mortgage loan transaction.
(b) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
(1) “Licensed person” means a real estate broker licensed under the Real Estate Law (Part 1
(commencing with Section 10000) of Division 4 of the Business and Professions Code), a finance
lender or broker licensed under the California Finance Lenders Law (Division 9 (commencing with
Section 22000) of the Financial Code), a residential mortgage lender licensed under the California
Residential Mortgage Lending Act (Division 20 (commencing with Section 50000) of the Financial
Code), a commercial or industrial bank organized under the Banking Law (Division 1 (commencing with
Section 99) of the Financial Code), a savings association organized under the Savings Association
Law (Division 2 (commencing with Section 5000) of the Financial Code), and a credit union organized
under the California Credit Union Law (Division 5 (commencing with Section 14000) of the Financial
Code).
(2) “Mortgage broker” means a licensed person who provides
mortgage brokerage services. For purposes of this section, a licensed person who makes a residential
mortgage loan is a “mortgage broker,”and subject to the requirements of this section applicable to
mortgage brokers, only with respect to transactions in which the
licensed person provides mortgage brokerage services.
(3) “Mortgage brokerage services” means arranging or attempting to arrange, as exclusive agent for
the borrower or as dual agent for the borrower and lender, for compensation or in expectation of
compensation, paid directly or indirectly, a residential mortgage loan made by an unaffiliated third party.
(4) “Residential mortgage loan” means a consumer credit
transaction that is secured by residential real property that is
improved by four or fewer residential units.
(c) The duties set forth in this section shall not be construed to limit or narrow any other fiduciary duty of
a mortgage broker.

Trust Deed/Mortgage defined

“Mortgage” Defined
2920. (a) A mortgage is a contract by which specific property,
including an estate for years in real property, is hypothecated for the performance of an act, without the
necessity of a change of possession.
(b) For purposes of Sections 2924 to 2924h, inclusive, “mortgage” also means any security device or
instrument, other than a deed of trust, that confers a power of sale affecting real property or an estate
for years therein, to be exercised after breach of the obligation so secured, including a real property
sales contract, as defined in Section 2985, which contains such a provision.

Property in possession of adverse claimant
2921. A mortgage may be created upon property held adversely to the mortgagor.

Writing-Formalities
2922. A mortgage can be created, renewed, or extended, only by writing, executed with the formalities
required in the case of a grant of real property.

Lien-Special-Possession
2923.
The lien of a mortgage is special, unless otherwise expressly agreed, and is independent of
possession.

state sites for foreclosure help

NEWS

MEDIA CENTER

VIDEO

Home Front: California agency looks at ways to stem defaults ShareThis

Upstairs in Sacramento’s fashionable Senator Office Building, three full-time staffers and a steering committee of 12 are hurriedly crafting solutions to the raging mortgage crisis that neither banks nor the federal government has been able to stop. Read more…

Fighting for Mortgage Reform

http://www.youtube.com/v/PNU6WCSMPV0&hl=en&fs=1&

(Sacramento) One California state lawmaker is fighting to reverse the mortgage meltdown. State Assemblymember Ted Lieu (D-Torrance) says its time for financial institutions that have been bailed out by taxpayer dollars to do more to keep struggling homeowners in their homes. A new law authored by Assemblymember Lieu will force lenders to run a comprehensive loan modification program or face a 90 day foreclosure moratorium. And, Lieu says, his California Foreclosure Prevention Act is just the first step so hes introduced new legislation that will end some of the worst practices of the subprime loan industry. Heres more in this Assembly Web Report.

Foreclosure Relief Bill Headed to Governor’s Desk

http://www.youtube.com/v/XExe0-jcnGA&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0

(Sacramento) – Legislation by Assembly Speaker Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles) and Senate President pro Tem Don Perata (D-Oakland) providing immediate relief to homeowners caught in the mortgage crisis is on its way to the Governor’s desk. As we learn in this Assembly Web Report, SB 1137 would require lenders to contact property owners to attempt to avoid foreclosure, provide tenants additional time to move from a foreclosed property and mandate maintenance of foreclosed properties to diminish the impact on the value of neighboring homes. The legislation is an urgency measure, meaning it will become law once the Governor signs it.

Fixing the Foreclosure Crisis

http://www.youtube.com/v/rF8VKe_vK3g&hl=en&rel=0

(Sacramento) – As the mortgage meltdown in America continues to cause stress and strain for thousands of families, Assembly Democrats in the California State Legislature are working to reform the mortgage industry, hoping the proposed regulations will mitigate the financial pain. Led by Assembly Speaker Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles) and Assemblymember Ted Lieu (D-Torrance), Assembly Democrats have crafted a package of legislation designed to change the way home loans are prepared and implemented. Here’s more on the Assembly Democrat’s mortgage crisis relief and reform package in this Assembly Web Report.

Assemblymember Caballero Helping Constituents With Mortgage Crisis Issues

http://www.youtube.com/v/R5pLho83XKw&rel=1

(Sacramento) – The sub-prime mortgage crisis continues to ravage families throughout California and the nation. Assemblymember Anna Caballero (D-Salinas) says in 2007 home foreclosures skyrocketed in her 28th Assembly District that includes portions of Monterey, San Benito , Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties. A package of Democratic measures to relieve some of the problems in the mortgage industry continues to move forward in the Assembly. As we learn in this Assembly Web Report, Assemblywoman Caballero is bringing helpful information directly to her constituents by hosting mortgage crisis forums throughout her district.

Assembly Democrats Take Action to Relieve Sub-prime Mortgage Crisis

http://www.youtube.com/v/QaooIYl2hd4&rel=1

(Sacramento) – As the sub-prime mortgage crisis continues to ravage families throughout the state and the nation Assembly Democrats are moving forward with legislation to help consumers who are in danger of losing their homes. Yesterday afternoon the Assembly Committee on Banking and Finance approved legislation from Assemblymembers Ted Lieu, Karen Bass and Alberto Torrico that will require lenders to report how they’re helping consumers who face possible foreclosure, that will keep “foreclosure consultants” from using predatory methods to take advantage of homeowners and that will require lenders to provide more and better notifications to homeowners of expected mortgage payment hikes.

Assembly Democrats on Mortgage Crisis

http://www.youtube.com/v/xHol_uxp1LQ&rel=0

(Sacramento) — Assembly Democrats, led by Speaker of the Assembly Fabian Núñez, are calling for a special legislative session to address the growing foreclosure crisis. The Speaker and the Assembly Democrats have introduced a package of bills designed to stem the rising tide of foreclosures and keep the problem from happening again in the future. As we learn in this Assembly Web Report the Center for Responsible Lending says nearly 180,000 California homes will be lost to foreclosure from the 826,900 sub-prime loans made in 2005-2006 alone. Thousands of families are suffering and California could lose nearly $3 billion in property tax revenue.

Stockton Foreclosure Rates Worst in Nation

http://mfile.akamai.com/14081/wmv/vod.ibsys.com/2007/1115/14600265.200k.asx

Stockton has the worst foreclosure rates in the nation for the third quarter of this year and Sacramento is not far behind.

Lawmakers Look for Foreclosure Fixes

http://mfile.akamai.com/14081/wmv/vod.ibsys.com/2007/1102/14498802.200k.asx

Part of the government’s new program encourages people to get help before they’re too deep in debt….Nov 02, 2007

Modesto Leads in Foreclosures Nationwide

http://mfile.akamai.com/14081/wmv/vod.ibsys.com/2007/0919/14145823.200k.asx

The sub prime lending mess created a housing bubble in the Sacramento Valley. In August, Modesto had more foreclosures than any other city in the nation….Sep 18, 2007

Bush Announces Initiatives for Mortgage Crisis

http://mfile.akamai.com/14081/wmv/vod.ibsys.com/2007/0831/14024625.200k.asx

President Bush announces several initiatives to address the escalating mortgage crisis and help homeowners who are facing foreclosure….Aug 31, 2007

All Stories on KCRA.com with Foreclosure in the heading

http://www.youtube.com/v/ge5mx3cyNLM&rel=0

Speaker Fabian Núñez on the Home Mortgage Crisis – part 1

http://www.youtube.com/v/t9kRZZxFkzI&rel=0

Speaker Fabian Núñez on the Home Mortgage Crisis – part 2

http://www.youtube.com/v/n1nQgiqHy44&rel=0

Speaker Fabian Núñez on the Home Mortgage Crisis – part 3

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-6796823761430488459&hl=en

Assembly Banking and Finance Committee Chair Ted Lieu on the Home Mortgage Crisis

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=4566431094117868557&hl=en

Assembly Banking and Finance Committee Chair Ted Lieu on the Home Mortgage Crisis (part 2)

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=6265790924257265530&hl=en

Assemblymember Kevin de León on the Home Mortgage Crisis

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-5026681319705120773&hl=en

Assembly Labor and Employment Committee Chair Sandré Swanson on the Home Mortgage Crisis

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=6654387921883820208&hl=en

Assembly Judiciary Committee Chair Dave Jones on the Home Mortgage Crisis

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-9170833597049132957&hl=en

Assemblymember Kevin de León on the Home Mortgage Crisis (In Spanish)

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=7005864128976048040&hl=en

Assemblymember Kevin de León on the Home Mortgage Crisis – (part 2) (In Spanish)

AUDIO

NEWS

YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO CASH PAYMENT FOR WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE — Coming to a Billboard Near YOU

Posted on September 25, 2010 by Foreclosureblues

YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO CASH PAYMENT FOR WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE — Coming to a Billboard Near YOU

Posted on September 25, 2010 by Neil Garfield

GARFIELD’S NOTE: Well it has finally happened. Three years ago I couldn’t get a single lawyer anywhere to consider this line of work. I predicted that this area of expertise in their practice would dwarf anything they were currently doing including personal injury and malpractice. I even tried to guarantee fees to lawyers and they wouldn’t take it. Now there are hundreds, if not thousands of lawyers who are either practicing in this field or are about to take the plunge. The early adopters who attended my workshops and read my materials, workbooks and bought the DVD’s are making some serious money and have positioned themselves perfectly ahead of the crowd.

Congratulations, everyone, it was the readers who made this happen. Without your support I would not have been able to reach the many thousands of homeowners and lawyers and government officials whoa re now turning the corner in their understanding of this mess and their willingness to do something about it.

The article below from Streitfeld sounds like it was written by me. No attribution though. No matter. The message is out. The foreclosures were and are wrongful, illegal, immoral and the opposite of any notion we have of justice. They were dressed up to look right and they got way with it for years because so many homeowners simply gave up convinced they had only to blame themselves for getting into a raw deal. Those homeowners who gave up were wrong and now they will find themselves approached by lawyers who will promise them return of the house they lost or damages for the wrongful foreclosure. When you left, you thought your loan had not been paid and that the notice you received was legitimate. You were wrong on both counts. The loan had been paid, there were other people who had signed up for liability along with you to justify the price on steroids that was sold to your lender (investor).

For those who are just catching up, here it is in a nutshell: Borrower signs a note to ABC Corp., which says it is the lender but isn’t. So you start right away with the wrong party named on the note and mortgage (deed of trust) PLUS the use of a meaningless nominee on the mortgage (deed of trust) which completely invalidates the documents and clouds the title. Meanwhile the lender gets a mortgage bond NOT SIGNED BY THE BORROWER. The bond says that this new “entity” (which usually they never bothered to actually form) will pay them from “receivables.” The receivables include but ARE NOT LIMITED TO the payments from the borrower who accepted funding of a loan. These other parties are there to justify the fact that the loan was sold at a huge premium to the lender without disclosure to either the borrower or the lender. (The tier 2 Yield Spread Premium that raises some really juicy causes of action under TILA, RESPA and the 10b-5 actions, including treble damages, attorney fees and restitution).

And and by the way for the more sophisticated lawyers, now would be the time to sharpen up your defense skills and your knowledge of administrative laws. Hundreds of thousands of disciplinary actions are going to filed against the professionally licensed people who attended the borrower’s “closing” and who attended the closing with the “lender.” With their livelihood at stake, their current arrogance will morph into abject fear. Here is your line when you quote them fees: “Remember that rainy day you were saving up for? Well, it’s raining!” Many lawyers and homeowners are going to realize that they have easy pickings when they bring administrative grievances in quasi criminal proceedings (don’t threaten it, that’s a crime, just do it) which results in restitution funded by the professional liability insurer. careful about the way you word the grievance. Don’t go overboard or else the insurance carrier will deny coverage based upon the allegation of an intentional act. You want to allege gross negligence.

EVERYBODY in the securitization structure gets paid premium money to keep their mouth shut and money changes hands faster than one of those street guys who moves shells or cards around on a table. Yes everyone gets paid — except the borrower who never got the benefit of his the bargain he signed up for — a home worth whatever they said it was worth at closing. It wasn’t worth that and it will never be worth that and everyone except the borrower knew it with the possible exception of some lenders who didn’t care because the other people who the borrower knew nothing about, had “guaranteed” the value of the lender’s investment and minimized the risk to the level of “cash equivalent” AAA-rated.

The securitization “partners” did not dot their “i’s” nor cross their “t’s.” And that is what the article below is about. But they failed to do that for a reason. They didn’t care about the documents because they never had any intention of using them anyway. It was all a scam cleverly disguised as a legitimate part of the home mortgage industry. It was instead a Ponzi scheme without any of the attributes of real appraisals, real underwriting reviews and committees and decisions. They bought the signature of the borrowers by promising the moon and they sold the apparent existence of signature (which in many cases) did not even exist) to Lenders by promising the stars.

And now, like it wasn’t news three years ago when we first brought it up, suddenly mainstream media is picking up the possibility that the foreclosures were all fraudulent also. The pretender lenders were intentionally and knowingly misrepresenting themselves as lenders in order to grab property that didn’t belong to them and to which they had no rights — to the detriment of both the borrowers and the lenders. And some judges, government officials and even lawyers appear to be surprised by that, are you?

———–

GMAC’s Errors Leave Foreclosures in Question

By DAVID STREITFELD

The recent admission by a major mortgage lender that it had filed dubious foreclosure documents is likely to fuel a furor against hasty foreclosures, which have prompted complaints nationwide since housing prices collapsed.

Lawyers for distressed homeowners and law enforcement officials in several states on Friday seized on revelations by GMAC Mortgage, the country’s fourth-largest home loan lender, that it had violated legal rules in its rush to file many foreclosures as quickly as possible.

Attorneys general in Iowa and North Carolina said they were beginning separate investigations of the lender, and the attorney general in California directed the company to suspend all foreclosures in that state until it “proves that it’s following the letter of the law.”

The federal government, which became the majority owner of GMAC after supplying $17 billion to prevent the lender’s failure, said Friday that it had told the company to clean up its act.

Florida lawyers representing borrowers in default said they would start filing motions as early as next week to have hundreds of foreclosure actions dismissed.

While GMAC is the first big lender to publicly acknowledge that its practices might have been improper, defense lawyers and consumer advocates have long argued that numerous lenders have used inaccurate or incomplete documents to remove delinquent owners from their houses.

The issue has broad consequences for the millions of buyers of foreclosed homes, some of whom might not have clear title to their bargain property. And it may offer unforeseen opportunities for those who were evicted.

“You know those billboards that lawyers put up seeking divorcing or bankrupt clients?” asked Greg Clark, a Florida real estate lawyer. “It’s only a matter of time until they start putting up signs that say, ‘You might be entitled to cash payment for wrongful foreclosure.’ ”

The furor has already begun in Florida, which is one of the 23 states where foreclosures must be approved by courts. Nearly half a million foreclosures are in the Florida courts, overwhelming the system.

J. Thomas McGrady, chief judge in the foreclosure hotbed of St. Petersburg, said the problems went far beyond GMAC. Four major law firms doing foreclosures for lenders are under investigation by the Florida attorney general.

“Some of what the lenders are submitting in court is incompetent, some is just sloppy,” said Judge McGrady of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in Clearwater, Fla. “And somewhere in there could be a fraudulent element.”

In many cases, the defaulting homeowners do not hire lawyers, making problems generated by the lenders hard to detect.

“Documents are submitted, and there’s no one to really contest whether it is accurate or not,” the judge said. “We have an affidavit that says it is, so we rely on that. But then later we may find out that someone lost their home when they shouldn’t have. We don’t like that.”

GMAC, which is based in Detroit and is now a subsidiary of Ally Financial, first put the spotlight on its procedures when it told real estate agents and brokers last week that it was immediately and indefinitely stopping all evictions and sales of foreclosed property in the states — generally on the East Coast and in the Midwest — where foreclosures must be approved by courts.

That was a highly unusual move. So was the lender’s simultaneous withdrawal of important affidavits in pending cases. The affidavits were sworn statements by GMAC officials that they had personal knowledge of the foreclosure documents.

The company played down its actions, saying the defects in its foreclosure filings were “technical.” It has declined to say how many cases might be affected.

A GMAC spokeswoman also declined to say Friday whether the company would stop foreclosures in California as the attorney general, Jerry Brown, demanded. Foreclosures in California are not judicial.

GMAC’s vague explanations have been little comfort to some states.

“We cannot allow companies to systematically flout the rules of civil procedure,” said one of Iowa’s assistant attorneys general, Patrick Madigan. “They’re either going to have to hire more people or the foreclosure process is going to have to slow down.”

GMAC began as the auto financing arm of General Motors. During the housing boom, it made a heavy bet on subprime borrowers, giving loans to many people who could not afford a house.

“We have discussed the current situation with GMAC and expect them to take prompt action to correct any errors,” said Mark Paustenbach, a spokesman for the Treasury Department.

GMAC appears to have been forced to reveal its problems in the wake of several depositions given by Jeffrey Stephan, the team leader of the document execution unit in the lender’s Fort Washington, Pa., offices.

Mr. Stephan, 41, said in one deposition that he signed as many as 10,000 affidavits and other foreclosure documents a month; in another he said it was 6,000 to 8,000.

The affidavits state that Mr. Stephan, in his capacity as limited signing officer for GMAC, had examined “all books, records and documents” involved in the foreclosure and that he had “personal knowledge” of the relevant facts.

In the depositions, Mr. Stephan said he did not do this.

In a June deposition, a lawyer representing a foreclosed household put it directly: “So other than the due date and the balances due, is it correct that you do not know whether any other part of the affidavit that you sign is true?”

“That could be correct,” Mr. Stephan replied.

Mr. Stephan also said in depositions that his signature had not been notarized when he wrote it, but only later, or even the next day.

GMAC said Mr. Stephan was not available for an interview. The lender said its “failures” did not “reflect any disrespect for our courts or the judicial processes.”

Margery Golant, a Boca Raton, Fla., foreclosure defense lawyer, said GMAC “has cracked open the door.”

“Judges used to look at us strangely when we tried to tell them all these major financial institutions are lying,” said Ms. Golant, a former associate general counsel for the lender Ocwen Financial.

Her assistants were reviewing all of the law firm’s cases Friday to see whether GMAC had been involved. “Lawyers all over Florida and I’m sure all over the country are drafting pleadings,” she said. “We’ll file motions for sanctions and motions to dismiss the case for fraud on the court.”

For homeowners in foreclosure, the admissions by GMAC are bringing hope for resolution.

One such homeowner is John Turner, a commercial airline pilot based near Detroit. Three years ago he bought a Florida condo, thinking he would move down there with a girlfriend. The relationship fizzled, his finances dwindled, and the place went into foreclosure.

GMAC called several times a week, seeking its $195,000. Mr. Turner says he tried to meet the lender halfway but failed. Last week it put his case in limbo by withdrawing the affidavit.

“We should be able to come to an agreement that’s beneficial to both of us,” Mr. Turner said. “I feel like I’m due something.”

Foreclosure code

“Mortgage” Defined
2920. (a) A mortgage is a contract by which specific property,
including an estate for years in real property, is hypothecated for the performance of an act, without the
necessity of a change of possession.
(b) For purposes of Sections 2924 to 2924h, inclusive, “mortgage” also means any security device or
instrument, other than a deed of trust, that confers a power of sale affecting real property or an estate
for years therein, to be exercised after breach of the obligation so secured, including a real property
sales contract, as defined in Section 2985, which contains such a provision.

Property in possession of adverse claimant
2921. A mortgage may be created upon property held adversely to the mortgagor.

Writing-Formalities
2922. A mortgage can be created, renewed, or extended, only by writing, executed with the formalities
required in the case of a grant of real property.

Lien-Special-Possession
2923.
The lien of a mortgage is special, unless otherwise expressly agreed, and is independent of
possession.

Broker’s Duty to Borrower
2923.1.
(a) A mortgage broker providing mortgage brokerage services to a borrower is the fiduciary of the
borrower, and any violation of the broker’s fiduciary duties shall be a violation of the mortgage broker’s
license law. This fiduciary duty includes a requirement that the mortgage broker place the economic
interest of the borrower ahead of his or her own economic interest. A mortgage broker who provides
mortgage brokerage services to the borrower owes this fiduciary duty to the borrower regardless of
whether the mortgage broker is acting as an agent for any other party in connection with the residential
mortgage loan transaction.
(b) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
(1) “Licensed person” means a real estate broker licensed under the Real Estate Law (Part 1
(commencing with Section 10000) of Division 4 of the Business and Professions Code), a finance
lender or broker licensed under the California Finance Lenders Law (Division 9 (commencing with
Section 22000) of the Financial Code), a residential mortgage lender licensed under the California
Residential Mortgage Lending Act (Division 20 (commencing with Section 50000) of the Financial
Code), a commercial or industrial bank organized under the Banking Law (Division 1 (commencing with
Section 99) of the Financial Code), a savings association organized under the Savings Association
Law (Division 2 (commencing with Section 5000) of the Financial Code), and a credit union organized
under the California Credit Union Law (Division 5 (commencing with Section 14000) of the Financial
Code).
(2) “Mortgage broker” means a licensed person who provides
mortgage brokerage services. For purposes of this section, a licensed person who makes a residential
mortgage loan is a “mortgage broker,”and subject to the requirements of this section applicable to
mortgage brokers, only with respect to transactions in which the
licensed person provides mortgage brokerage services.
(3) “Mortgage brokerage services” means arranging or attempting to arrange, as exclusive agent for
the borrower or as dual agent for the borrower and lender, for compensation or in expectation of
compensation, paid directly or indirectly, a residential mortgage loan made by an unaffiliated third party.
(4) “Residential mortgage loan” means a consumer credit
transaction that is secured by residential real property that is
improved by four or fewer residential units.
(c) The duties set forth in this section shall not be construed to limit or narrow any other fiduciary duty of
a mortgage broker.

Pre-Foreclosure – Required Notice and Duty to Confer with Borrower –
2923.5.
(a) (1) A mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized
agent may not file a notice of default pursuant to Section 2924 until 30 days after initial contact is made
as required by paragraph (2) or 30 days after satisfying the due diligence requirements as described in
subdivision (g).
(2) A mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall contact the borrower in person or by telephone
in order to assess the borrower’s financial situation and explore options for the borrower to avoid
foreclosure. During the initial contact, the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall advise the
borrower that he or she has the right to request a subsequent meeting and, if requested, the mortgagee,
beneficiary, or authorized agent shall schedule the
meeting to occur within 14 days. The assessment of the borrower’s financial situation and discussion
of options may occur during the first contact, or at the subsequent meeting scheduled for that purpose.
In either case, the borrower shall be provided the toll-free telephone number made available by the
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to find a HUD-certified housing
counseling agency. Any meeting may occur telephonically.
(b) A notice of default filed pursuant to Section 2924 shall
include a declaration that the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent has contacted the borrower,
has tried with due diligence to contact the borrower as required by this section, or that no contact was
required pursuant to subdivision (h).
(c) If a mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent had already filed the notice of default prior to
the enactment of this section and did not subsequently file a notice of rescission, then the mortgagee,
trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall, as part of the notice of sale filed pursuant to Section
2924f, include a declaration that either:
(1) States that the borrower was contacted to assess the borrower’s financial situation and to explore
options for the borrower to avoid foreclosure.
(2) Lists the efforts made, if any, to contact the borrower in the
event no contact was made.
(d) A mortgagee’s, beneficiary’s, or authorized agent’s loss
mitigation personnel may participate by telephone during any contact required by this section.
(e) For purposes of this section, a “borrower” shall include a
mortgagor or trustor.
(f) A borrower may designate, with consent given in writing, a
HUD-certified housing counseling agency, attorney, or other advisor to discuss with the mortgagee,
beneficiary, or authorized agent, on the borrower’s behalf, the borrowers financial situation and options
for the borrower to avoid foreclosure. That contact made at the direction of the borrower shall satisfy
the contact requirements of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a). Any loan modification or workout plan
offered at the meeting by the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent is subject to approval by the
borrower.
(g) A notice of default may be filed pursuant to Section 2924 when a mortgagee, beneficiary, or
authorized agent has not contacted a borrower as required by paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) provided
that the failure to contact the borrower occurred despite the due diligence of the mortgagee,
beneficiary, or authorized agent. For purposes of this section, “due diligence” shall require and mean
all of the following:
(1) A mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall first
attempt to contact a borrower by sending a first-class letter that
includes the toll-free telephone number made available by HUD to find a HUD-certified housing
counseling agency.
(2) (A) After the letter has been sent, the mortgagee,
beneficiary, or authorized agent shall attempt to contact the
borrower by telephone at least three times at different hours and on different days. Telephone calls
shall be made to the primary telephone number on file.
(B) A mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent may attempt to contact a borrower using an automated
system to dial borrowers, provided that, if the telephone call is answered, the call is connected to a
live representative of the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent.
(C) A mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent satisfies the
telephone contact requirements of this paragraph if it determines, after attempting contact pursuant to
this paragraph, that the borrower’s primary telephone number and secondary telephone number or
numbers on file, if any, have been disconnected.
(3) If the borrower does not respond within two weeks after the telephone call requirements of
paragraph (2) have been satisfied, the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall then send a
certified letter, with return receipt requested.
(4) The mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall provide a means for the borrower to contact it
in a timely manner, including a toll-free telephone number that will provide access to a live
representative during business hours.
(5) The mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent has posted a prominent link on the homepage of its
Internet Web site, if any, to the following information:
(A) Options that may be available to borrowers who are unable to afford their mortgage payments and
who wish to avoid foreclosure, and instructions to borrowers advising them on steps to take to explore
those options.
(B) A list of financial documents borrowers should collect and be prepared to present to the mortgagee,
beneficiary, or authorized agent when discussing options for avoiding foreclosure.
(C) A toll-free telephone number for borrowers who wish to discuss options for avoiding foreclosure
with their mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent.
(D) The toll-free telephone number made available by HUD to find a HUD-certified housing counseling
agency.
(h) Subdivisions (a), (c), and (g) shall not apply if any of the
following occurs:
(1) The borrower has surrendered the property as evidenced by either a letter confirming the surrender
or delivery of the keys to the property to the mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent.
(2) The borrower has contracted with an organization, person, or entity whose primary business is
advising people who have decided to leave their homes on how to extend the foreclosure process and
avoid their contractual obligations to mortgagees or beneficiaries.
(3) A case has been filed by the borrower under Chapter 7, 11, 12, or 13 of Title 11 of the United States
Code and the bankruptcy court has not entered an order closing or dismissing the bankruptcy case, or
granting relief from a stay of foreclosure.
(i) This section shall apply only to mortgages or deeds of trust
recorded from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2007, inclusive, that are secured by owner-occupied
residential real property containing no more than four dwelling units. For purposes of this subdivision,
“owner-occupied” means that the residence is the principal residence of the borrower as indicated to
the lender in loan documents.
(j) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,
2013, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted
statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2013, deletes or extends that date.

Notice of Sale – Additional 90 Days
2923.52. (a) Notwithstanding paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of
Section 2924, a mortgagee, trustee, or other person authorized to take sale shall not give notice of sale
until at least 90 days after the lapse of three months as set forth in paragraph (2) of
subdivision (a) of Section 2924, in order to allow the parties to
pursue a loan modification to prevent foreclosure, if all of the
following conditions exist:
(1) The loan was recorded during the period of January 1, 2003, to January 1, 2008, inclusive, and is
secured by residential real property.
(2) The loan at issue is the first mortgage or deed of trust that
the property secures.
(3) The borrower occupied the property as the borrower’s principal residence at the time the loan
became delinquent.
(4) The notice of default has been recorded on the property.
(b) This section does not apply to loans serviced by a mortgage loan servicer if that mortgage loan
servicer has obtained a temporary or final order of exemption pursuant to Section 2923.53 that is
current and valid at the time the notice of sale is given.
(c) This section does not apply to loans made, purchased, or
serviced by:
(1) A California state or local public housing agency or
authority, including state or local housing finance agencies
established under Division 31 (commencing with Section 50000) of the Health and Safety Code and
Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 980) of Division 4 of the Military and Veterans Code.
(2) Loans that are collateral for securities purchased by an
agency or authority described in paragraph (1).
(d) This section shall become operative 14 days after the issuance of regulations, which shall include
the form of the application for mortgage loan servicers, by the commissioner pursuant to subdivision
(d) of Section 2923.53.(e) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2011, and as of that
date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2011, deletes or
extends that date.

Loan Modification
2923.53. (a) A mortgage loan servicer that has implemented a
comprehensive loan modification program that meets the requirements of this section shall have the
loans that it services exempted from the provisions of Section 2923.52, upon order of the
commissioner. A comprehensive loan modification program shall include all of the
following features:
(1) The loan modification program is intended to keep borrowers whose principal residences are
homes located in California in those homes when the anticipated recovery under the loan modification
or workout plan exceeds the anticipated recovery through foreclosure on a net present value basis.
(2) The loan modification program targets a ratio of the borrower’s housing-related debt to the
borrower’s gross income of 38 percent or less, on an aggregate basis in the program.
(3) The loan modification program includes some combination of the following features:
(A) An interest rate reduction, as needed, for a fixed term of at
least five years.
(B) An extension of the amortization period for the loan term, to no more than 40 years from the original
date of the loan.
(C) Deferral of some portion of the principal amount of the unpaid principal balance until maturity of the
loan.
(D) Reduction of principal.
(E) Compliance with a federally mandated loan modification
program.
(F) Other factors that the commissioner determines are
appropriate. In determining those factors, the commissioner may consider efforts implemented in other
jurisdictions that have resulted in a reduction in foreclosures.
(4) When determining a loan modification solution for a borrower under the loan modification program,
the servicer seeks to achieve long-term sustainability for the borrower.
(b) (1) A mortgage loan servicer may apply to the commissioner for an order exempting loans that it
services from Section 2923.52. If the mortgage loan servicer elects to apply for an order, the
application shall be in the form and manner determined by the commissioner.
(2) Upon receipt of an initial application for exemption under
this section, the commissioner shall immediately notify the applicant of the date of receipt of the
application and shall issue a temporary order, effective from that date of receipt, exempting the
mortgage loan servicer from the provisions of subdivision (a) of Section 2923.52. The temporary order
shall remain in effect until a final order has been issued by the commissioner pursuant to paragraph
(3). If the initial application for exemption is denied pursuant to
paragraph (3), the temporary order shall remain in effect for 30 days after the date of denial.
(3) Within 30 days of receipt of an initial or revised application, the commissioner shall make a final
determination on whether the application meets the criteria of subdivision (a). If, after review of the
application, the commissioner concludes that the mortgage loan servicer has a comprehensive loan
modification program that meets the requirements of subdivision (a), the commissioner shall issue a
final order exempting the mortgage loan servicer from the requirements of Section 2923.52. If the
commissioner concludes that the loan modification program does not meet the requirements of
subdivision (a), the application for exemption shall be denied and a final order shall not be issued.
(4) A mortgage loan servicer may submit a revised application if its application for exemption is denied.
(c) The commissioner may revoke a final order, upon reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard,
if the mortgage loan servicer has submitted a materially false or misleading application or if the
approved loan modification program has been materially altered from the loan modification program on
which the exemption was based. A revocation by the commissioner shall not be retroactive.
(d) The commissioner shall adopt, no later than 10 days after the date this section takes effect,
emergency and final regulations to clarify the application of this section and Section 2923.52, including
the creation of the application for mortgage loan servicers and requirements regarding the reporting of
loan modification data by mortgage loan servicers.
(e) Three months after the first exemption is issued pursuant to subdivision (b) by order of any
commissioner specified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (j), the Secretary of Business, Transportation
and Housing shall submit a report to the Legislature regarding the details of the actions taken to
implement this section and the numbers of applications received and orders issued. The secretary
shall submit an additional report six months from the date of the submission of the first report and
every six months thereafter.
Within existing resources, the commissioners shall collect, from some or all mortgage loan servicers,
data regarding loan modifications accomplished pursuant to this section and shall make the data
available on an Internet Web site at least quarterly.
(f) The Secretary of Business, Transportation and Housing shall maintain on an Internet Web site a
publicly available list disclosing the final orders granting exemptions, the date of each order, and a link
to Internet Web sites describing the loan modification programs.
(g) Until January 1, 2010, the commissioner is authorized to
contract for goods and services necessary to implement the provisions of this section and Section
2923.52, and any such contract shall be exempt from Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 10290) of
Part 2 of Division 2 of the Public Contract Code. Not less than 30 days prior to awarding any contract
under this section, the commissioner shall provide the pending contract documents to the Joint
Legislative
Budget Committee.
(h) Any person who violates any provision of this section or
Section 2923.52 shall be deemed to have violated his or her license law as it relates to these
provisions.
(i) Nothing in this section or Section 2923.52 shall require a
servicer to violate contractual agreements for investor-owned loans or provide a modification to a
borrower who is not willing or able to pay under the modification.
(j) The submission of an application for an exemption under this section, the reliance upon such an
exemption, or the provision to the commissioner of data related to the loan modification program shall
not confer on the commissioner visitorial authority over a federally chartered financial institution.
Nothing in this subdivision is intended to affect the authority of the commissioner over a federally
chartered financial institution pursuant to federal law or regulation.
(k) For purposes of this section and Sections 2923.52 and 2923.54:
(1) “Commissioner” means any of the following:
(A) The Commissioner of Corporations for licensed residential mortgage lenders and servicers and
licensed finance lenders and brokers servicing mortgage loans and any other entities servicing
mortgage loans that are not described in subparagraph (B) or (C).
(B) The Commissioner of Financial Institutions for commercial and industrial banks and savings
associations and credit unions organized in this state servicing mortgage loans.
(C) The Real Estate Commissioner for licensed real estate brokers servicing mortgage loans.
(2) “Housing-related debt” means debt that includes loan
principal, interest, property taxes, hazard insurance, flood
insurance, mortgage insurance, and homeowner association fees.
(3) “Mortgage loan servicer” means a person or entity that
receives or has the right to receive installment payments of
principal, interest, or other amounts placed in escrow, pursuant to the terms of a mortgage loan or deed
of trust, and performs services relating to that receipt or enforcement as the holder of the note or on
behalf of the holder of the note evidencing that loan.(l) This section shall remain in effect only until
January 1, 2011, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before
January 1, 2011, deletes or extends that date.

Notice of Sale
2923.54. (a) A notice of sale filed pursuant to Section 2924f shall include a declaration from the
mortgage loan servicer stating both of the following:
(1) Whether or not the mortgage loan servicer has obtained from the commissioner a final or temporary
order of exemption pursuant to Section 2923.53 that is current and valid on the date the notice of sale
is filed.
(2) Whether the timeframe for giving notice of sale specified in
subdivision (a) of Section 2923.52 does not apply pursuant to Section 2923.52 or 2923.55.
(b) Failure to comply with Section 2923.52 or 2923.53 shall not
invalidate any sale that would otherwise be valid under Section
2924f.(c) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,
2011, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted
statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2011, deletes or extends that date.

2923.55. Section 2923.52 shall not apply if any of the following
occurs:
(a) The borrower has surrendered the property, as evidenced by either a letter confirming the surrender
or delivery of the keys to the property to the mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent.
(b) The borrower has contracted with an organization, person, or entity whose primary business is
advising people who have decided to leave their homes regarding how to extend the foreclosure
process and avoid their contractual obligations to mortgagees or beneficiaries.
(c) A case has been filed by the borrower under Chapter 7, 11, 12, or 13 of Title 11 of the United States
Code, and the bankruptcy court has not entered an order closing or dismissing the bankruptcy case or
granting relief from a stay of foreclosure.(d) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,
2011, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1,
2011, deletes or extends that date.

Duty to Maximize Net Present Value Owed to All Parties
2923.6. (a) The Legislature finds and declares that any duty
servicers may have to maximize net present value under their pooling and servicing agreements is
owed to all parties in a loan pool, or to all investors under a pooling and servicing agreement, not to
any particular party in the loan pool or investor under a polling and servicing agreement, and that a
servicer acts in the best interests of all parties to the loan pool or investors in the pooling and
servicing agreement if it agrees to or implements a loan modification or workout plan for which both of
the following apply:
(1) The loan is in payment default, or payment default is
reasonably foreseeable.
(2) Anticipated recovery under the loan modification or workout plan exceeds the anticipated recovery
through foreclosure on a net present value basis.
(b) It is the intent of the Legislature that the mortgagee,
beneficiary, or authorized agent offer the borrower a loan
modification or workout plan if such a modification or plan is
consistent with its contractual or other authority.
(c) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,
2013, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted
statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2013, deletes or extends that date.

Trust Deed Exception – Exercise of Power of Sale in Trust Deed or Mortgage
2924. (a) Every transfer of an interest in property, other than in
trust, made only as a security for the performance of another act, is to be deemed a mortgage, except
when in the case of personal property it is accompanied by actual change of possession, in which
case it is to be deemed a pledge. Where, by a mortgage created after July 27, 1917, of any estate in real
property, other than an estate at will or for years, less than two, or in any transfer in trust made after
July 27, 1917, of a like estate to secure the performance of an obligation, a power of sale is conferred
upon the mortgagee, trustee, or any other person, to be exercised after a breach of the obligation for
which that mortgage or transfer is a security, the power shall not be exercised except where the
mortgage or transfer is
made pursuant to an order, judgment, or decree of a court of record, or to secure the payment of bonds
or other evidences of indebtedness authorized or permitted to be issued by the Commissioner of
Corporations, or is made by a public utility subject to the provisions of the Public Utilities Act, until all
of the following apply:
(1) The trustee, mortgagee, or beneficiary, or any of their
authorized agents shall first file for record, in the office of the
recorder of each county wherein the mortgaged or trust property or some part or parcel thereof is
situated, a notice of default. That notice of default shall include all of the following:
(A) A statement identifying the mortgage or deed of trust by
stating the name or names of the trustor or trustors and giving the book and page, or instrument
number, if applicable, where the mortgage or deed of trust is recorded or a description of the
mortgaged or trust property.
(B) A statement that a breach of the obligation for which the
mortgage or transfer in trust is security has occurred.
(C) A statement setting forth the nature of each breach actually known to the beneficiary and of his or
her election to sell or cause to be sold the property to satisfy that obligation and any other obligation
secured by the deed of trust or mortgage that is in
default.
(D) If the default is curable pursuant to Section 2924c, the
statement specified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 2924c.
(2) Not less than three months shall elapse from the filing of the notice of default.
(3) Except as provided in Section 2923.52, after the lapse of the three months described in paragraph
(2), the mortgagee, trustee or other person authorized to take the sale shall give notice of sale, stating
the time and place thereof, in the manner and for a time not less than that set forth in Section 2924f.
(b) In performing acts required by this article, the trustee shall
incur no liability for any good faith error resulting from reliance
on information provided in good faith by the beneficiary regarding the nature and the amount of the
default under the secured obligation, deed of trust, or mortgage. In performing the acts required by this
article, a trustee shall not be subject to Title 1.6c (commencing with Section 1788) of Part 4.
(c) A recital in the deed executed pursuant to the power of sale of compliance with all requirements of
law regarding the mailing of copies of notices or the publication of a copy of the notice of default or the
personal delivery of the copy of the notice of default or the posting of copies of the notice of sale or the
publication of a copy thereof shall constitute prima facie evidence of compliance with these
requirements and conclusive evidence thereof in favor of bona fide purchasers and encumbrancers for
value and without notice.
(d) All of the following shall constitute privileged
communications pursuant to Section 47:
(1) The mailing, publication, and delivery of notices as required by this section.
(2) Performance of the procedures set forth in this article.
(3) Performance of the functions and procedures set forth in this article if those functions and
procedures are necessary to carry out the duties described in Sections 729.040, 729.050, and 729.080
of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(e) There is a rebuttable presumption that the beneficiary
actually knew of all unpaid loan payments on the obligation owed to the beneficiary and secured by the
deed of trust or mortgage subject to the notice of default. However, the failure to include an actually
known default shall not invalidate the notice of sale and the beneficiary shall not be precluded from
asserting a claim to this omitted default or defaults in a separate notice of default.
(f) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2011, and as of that date is repealed, unless a
later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2011, deletes or extends that date.

2924.3. (a) Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c), a
person who has undertaken as an agent of a mortgagee, beneficiary, or owner of a promissory note
secured directly or collaterally by a mortgage or deed of trust on real property or an estate for years
therein, to make collections of payments from an obligor under the note, shall mail the following
notices, postage prepaid, to each mortgagee, beneficiary or owner for whom the agent has agreed to
make collections from the obligor under the note:
(1) A copy of the notice of default filed in the office of the
county recorder pursuant to Section 2924 on account of a breach of obligation under the promissory
note on which the agent has agreed to make collections of payments, within 15 days after recordation.
(2) Notice that a notice of default has been recorded pursuant to Section 2924 on account of a breach of
an obligation secured by a mortgage or deed of trust against the same property or estate for years
therein having priority over the mortgage or deed of trust securing the obligation described in
paragraph (1), within 15 days after recordation or within three business days after the agent receives
the information, whichever is later.
(3) Notice of the time and place scheduled for the sale of the
real property or estate for years therein pursuant to Section 2924f under a power of sale in a mortgage
or deed of trust securing an obligation described in paragraphs (1) or (2), not less than 15 days before
the scheduled date of the sale or not later than the next business day after the agent receives the
information, whichever is later.
(b) An agent who has undertaken to make collections on behalf of mortgagees, beneficiaries or owners
of promissory notes secured by mortgages or deeds of trust on real property or an estate for years
therein shall not be required to comply with the provisions of subdivision (a) with respect to a
mortgagee, beneficiary or owner who is entitled to receive notice pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section
2924b or for whom a request for notice has been recorded pursuant to
subdivision (b) of Section 2924b if the agent reasonably believes that the address of the mortgagee,
beneficiary, or owner described in Section 2924b is the current business or residence address of that
person.
(c) An agent who has undertaken to make collections on behalf of mortgagees, beneficiaries or owners
of promissory notes secured by mortgages or deeds of trust on real property or an estate for years
therein shall not be required to comply with the provisions of paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (a) if
the agent knows or reasonably believes that the default has already been cured by or on behalf of the
obligor.
(d) Any failure to comply with the provisions of this section
shall not affect the validity of a sale in favor of a bona fide
purchaser or the rights of an encumbrancer for value and without notice.

Acceleration Clauses – Notice of
2924.5. No clause in any deed of trust or mortgage on property
containing four or fewer residential units or on which four or fewer residential units are to be
constructed or in any obligation secured by any deed of trust or mortgage on property containing four or
fewer residential units or on which four or fewer residential units are to be constructed that provides
for the acceleration of the due date of the obligation upon the sale, conveyance, alienation, lease,
succession, assignment or other transfer of the property subject to
the deed of trust or mortgage shall be valid unless the clause is set forth, in its entirety in both the body
of the deed of trust or
mortgage and the promissory note or other document evidencing the secured obligation. This section
shall apply to all such deeds of trust, mortgages, and obligations secured thereby executed on or after
July 1, 1972.

Acceleration Clause – Limitations
2924.6. (a) An obligee may not accelerate the maturity date of the principal and accrued interest on any
loan secured by a mortgage or deed of trust on residential real property solely by reason of any one or
more of the following transfers in the title to the real property:
(1) A transfer resulting from the death of an obligor where the
transfer is to the spouse who is also an obligor.
(2) A transfer by an obligor where the spouse becomes a coowner of the property.
(3) A transfer resulting from a decree of dissolution of the
marriage or legal separation or from a property settlement agreement incidental to such a decree which
requires the obligor to continue to make the loan payments by which a spouse who is an obligor
becomes the sole owner of the property.
(4) A transfer by an obligor or obligors into an inter vivos trust
in which the obligor or obligors are beneficiaries.
(5) Such real property or any portion thereof is made subject to a junior encumbrance or lien.
(b) Any waiver of the provisions of this section by an obligor is void and unenforceable and is contrary
to public policy.
(c) For the purposes of this section, “residential real property” means any real property which contains
at least one but not more than four housing units.
(d) This act applies only to loans executed or refinanced on or
after January 1, 1976.

Acceleration Clause – Disbursement of Insurance Proceeds – Enforceability
2924.7. (a) The provisions of any deed of trust or mortgage on real property which authorize any
beneficiary, trustee, mortgagee, or his or her agent or successor in interest, to accelerate the maturity
date of the principal and interest on any loan secured thereby or to exercise any power of sale or other
remedy contained therein upon the failure of the trustor or mortgagor to pay, at the times provided for
under the terms of the deed of trust or mortgage, any taxes, rents, assessments, or insurance
premiums with respect to the property or the loan, or any advances made by the beneficiary,
mortgagee, or his or her agent or successor in interest shall be enforceable whether or not impairment
of the security interest in the
property has resulted from the failure of the trustor or mortgagor to pay the taxes, rents, assessments,
insurance premiums, or advances.
(b) The provisions of any deed of trust or mortgage on real
property which authorize any beneficiary, trustee, mortgagee, or his or her agent or successor in
interest, to receive and control the disbursement of the proceeds of any policy of fire, flood, or other
hazard insurance respecting the property shall be enforceable whether or not impairment of the
security interest in the property has resulted from the event that caused the proceeds of the insurance
policy to become payable.

Foreclosure – Additional Notice to Occupants
2924.8. (a) Upon posting a notice of sale pursuant to Section
2924f, a trustee or authorized agent shall also post the following notice, in the manner required for
posting the notice of sale on the property to be sold, and a mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or
authorized agent, concurrently with the mailing of the notice of sale pursuant to Section 2924b, shall
send by first-class mail in an envelope addressed to the “Resident of property subject to foreclosure
sale” the following notice in English and the languages described in Section 1632: “Foreclosure
process has begun on this property, which may affect your right to continue to live in this
property. Twenty days or more after the date of this notice, this
property may be sold at foreclosure. If you are renting this
property, the new property owner may either give you a new lease or rental agreement or provide you
with a 60-day eviction notice.
However, other laws may prohibit an eviction in this circumstance or provide you with a longer notice
before eviction. You may wish to contact a lawyer or your local legal aid or housing counseling agency
to discuss any rights you may have.”
(b) It shall be an infraction to tear down the notice described in subdivision (a) within 72 hours of
posting. Violators shall be
subject to a fine of one hundred dollars ($100).
(c) A state government entity shall make available translations of the notice described in subdivision
(a) which may be used by a mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent to satisfy the
requirements of this section.
(d) This section shall only apply to loans secured by residential real property, and if the billing address
for the mortgage note is different than the property address.
(e) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,
2013, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted
statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2013, deletes or extends that date.

Attorney for Trustee May Conduct Sale and Act as Auctioneer
2924a. If, by the terms of any trust or deed of trust a power of
sale is conferred upon the trustee, the attorney for the trustee, or any duly authorized agent, may
conduct the sale and act in the sale as the auctioneer for the trustee.

Copies of Notice of Sale and Default – How Procured
2924b. (a) Any person desiring a copy of any notice of default and of any notice of sale under any deed
of trust or mortgage with power of sale upon real property or an estate for years therein, as to which
deed of trust or mortgage the power of sale cannot be exercised until these notices are given for the
time and in the manner provided in Section 2924 may, at any time subsequent to recordation of the
deed of trust or mortgage and prior to recordation of notice of default thereunder, cause to be filed for
record in the office of
the recorder of any county in which any part or parcel of the real property is situated, a duly
acknowledged request for a copy of the notice of default and of sale. This request shall be signed and
acknowledged by the person making the request, specifying the name and address of the person to
whom the notice is to be mailed, shall identify the deed of trust or mortgage by stating the names of the
parties thereto, the date of recordation thereof, and the book and page where the deed of trust or
mortgage is recorded or the recorder’s number, and shall be in substantially the following form:

“In accordance with Section 2924b, Civil Code, request is hereby made that a copy of any notice of
default and a copy of any notice of sale under the deed of trust (or mortgage) recorded ______, ____,
in Book _____ page ____ records of ____ County, (or filed for record with recorder’s serial number
____, _______County) California, executed by ____ as trustor (or mortgagor) in which ________ is
named as
beneficiary (or mortgagee) and ______________ as trustee be mailed to _________________ at
___________________________.
Name Address
NOTICE: A copy of any notice of default and of any notice of sale will be sent only to the address
contained in this recorded request. If your address changes, a new request must be
recorded.
Signature _________________”

Upon the filing for record of the request, the recorder shall
index in the general index of grantors the names of the trustors (or mortgagor) recited therein and the
names of persons requesting copies.
(b) The mortgagee, trustee, or other person authorized to record the notice of default or the notice of
sale shall do each of the following:
(1) Within 10 business days following recordation of the notice of default, deposit or cause to be
deposited in the United States mail an envelope, sent by registered or certified mail with postage
prepaid, containing a copy of the notice with the recording date shown thereon, addressed to each
person whose name and address are set forth in a duly recorded request therefor, directed to the
address designated in the request and to each trustor or mortgagor at his or her last known address if
different than the address specified in the deed of trust or mortgage with power of sale.
(2) At least 20 days before the date of sale, deposit or cause to
be deposited in the United States mail an envelope, sent by
registered or certified mail with postage prepaid, containing a copy of the notice of the time and place
of sale, addressed to each person whose name and address are set forth in a duly recorded request
therefor, directed to the address designated in the request and to each trustor or mortgagor at his or her
last known address if different than the address specified in the deed of trust or mortgage with power
of sale.
(3) As used in paragraphs (1) and (2), the “last known address” of each trustor or mortgagor means the
last business or residence physical address actually known by the mortgagee, beneficiary, trustee, or
other person authorized to record the notice of default.
For the purposes of this subdivision, an address is “actually known” if it is contained in the original
deed of trust or mortgage, or in any subsequent written notification of a change of physical address
from the trustor or mortgagor pursuant to the deed of trust or mortgage. For the purposes of this
subdivision, “physical address” does not include an e-mail or any form of electronic address for a
trustor or mortgagor. The beneficiary shall inform the trustee of the
trustor’s last address actually known by the beneficiary. However, the trustee shall incur no liability for
failing to send any notice to the last address unless the trustee has actual knowledge of it.
(4) A “person authorized to record the notice of default or the
notice of sale” shall include an agent for the mortgagee or
beneficiary, an agent of the named trustee, any person designated in an executed substitution of
trustee, or an agent of that substituted trustee.
(c) The mortgagee, trustee, or other person authorized to record the notice of default or the notice of
sale shall do the following:
(1) Within one month following recordation of the notice of
default, deposit or cause to be deposited in the United States mail an envelope, sent by registered or
certified mail with postage prepaid, containing a copy of the notice with the recording date shown
thereon, addressed to each person set forth in paragraph (2), provided that the estate or interest of any
person entitled to receive notice under this subdivision is acquired by an instrument sufficient to
impart constructive notice of the estate or interest in the land or portion thereof that is subject to the
deed of trust or mortgage being foreclosed, and provided the instrument is recorded in
the office of the county recorder so as to impart that constructive notice prior to the recording date of
the notice of default and provided the instrument as so recorded sets forth a mailing address that the
county recorder shall use, as instructed within the instrument, for the return of the instrument after
recording, and which address shall be the address used for the purposes of mailing notices herein.
(2) The persons to whom notice shall be mailed under this
subdivision are:
(A) The successor in interest, as of the recording date of the
notice of default, of the estate or interest or any portion thereof
of the trustor or mortgagor of the deed of trust or mortgage being foreclosed.
(B) The beneficiary or mortgagee of any deed of trust or mortgage recorded subsequent to the deed of
trust or mortgage being foreclosed, or recorded prior to or concurrently with the deed of trust or
mortgage being foreclosed but subject to a recorded agreement or a recorded statement of
subordination to the deed of trust or mortgage being foreclosed.
(C) The assignee of any interest of the beneficiary or mortgagee described in subparagraph (B), as of the
recording date of the notice of default.
(D) The vendee of any contract of sale, or the lessee of any
lease, of the estate or interest being foreclosed that is recorded
subsequent to the deed of trust or mortgage being foreclosed, or recorded prior to or concurrently with
the deed of trust or mortgage being foreclosed but subject to a recorded agreement or statement of
subordination to the deed of trust or mortgage being foreclosed.
(E) The successor in interest to the vendee or lessee described in subparagraph (D), as of the
recording date of the notice of default.
(F) The office of the Controller, Sacramento, California, where,
as of the recording date of the notice of default, a “Notice of Lien for Postponed Property Taxes” has
been recorded against the real property to which the notice of default applies.
(3) At least 20 days before the date of sale, deposit or cause to
be deposited in the United States mail an envelope, sent by
registered or certified mail with postage prepaid, containing a copy of the notice of the time and place
of sale addressed to each person to whom a copy of the notice of default is to be mailed as provided in
paragraphs (1) and (2), and addressed to the office of any state taxing agency, Sacramento, California,
that has recorded, subsequent to the deed of trust or mortgage being foreclosed, a notice of tax lien
prior to the recording date of the notice of default against the real property to which the notice of default
applies.
(4) Provide a copy of the notice of sale to the Internal Revenue Service, in accordance with Section
7425 of the Internal Revenue Code and any applicable federal regulation, if a “Notice of Federal Tax
Lien under Internal Revenue Laws” has been recorded, subsequent to the deed of trust or mortgage
being foreclosed, against the real property to which the notice of sale applies. The failure to provide the
Internal Revenue Service with a copy of the notice of sale pursuant to this paragraph shall be sufficient
cause to rescind the
trustee’s sale and invalidate the trustee’s deed, at the option of
either the successful bidder at the trustee’s sale or the trustee,
and in either case with the consent of the beneficiary. Any option to rescind the trustee’s sale pursuant
to this paragraph shall be exercised prior to any transfer of the property by the successful bidder to a
bona fide purchaser for value. A rescission of the trustee’s sale pursuant to this paragraph may be
recorded in a notice of rescission pursuant to Section 1058.5.
(5) The mailing of notices in the manner set forth in paragraph
(1) shall not impose upon any licensed attorney, agent, or employee of any person entitled to receive
notices as herein set forth any duty to communicate the notice to the entitled person from the fact that
the mailing address used by the county recorder is the address of the attorney, agent, or employee.
(d) Any deed of trust or mortgage with power of sale hereafter
executed upon real property or an estate for years therein may
contain a request that a copy of any notice of default and a copy of any notice of sale thereunder shall
be mailed to any person or party thereto at the address of the person given therein, and a copy of any
notice of default and of any notice of sale shall be mailed to each of these at the same time and in the
same manner required as though a separate request therefor had been filed by each of these persons
as herein authorized. If any deed of trust or mortgage with power of
sale executed after September 19, 1939, except a deed of trust or mortgage of any of the classes
excepted from the provisions of Section 2924, does not contain a mailing address of the trustor or
mortgagor therein named, and if no request for special notice by the trustor or mortgagor in
substantially the form set forth in this section has subsequently been recorded, a copy of the notice of
default shall be published once a week for at least four weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in
the county in which the property is situated, the publication to commence within 10 business days after
the filing of the notice of default. In lieu of publication, a copy of the notice of default may be delivered
personally to the trustor or mortgagor within the 10 business days or at any time before publication is
completed, or by posting the notice of default in a conspicuous place on the property and mailing the
notice to the last known address of the trustor or mortgagor.
(e) Any person required to mail a copy of a notice of default or
notice of sale to each trustor or mortgagor pursuant to subdivision (b) or (c) by registered or certified
mail shall simultaneously cause to be deposited in the United States mail, with postage prepaid and
mailed by first-class mail, an envelope containing an additional copy of the required notice addressed
to each trustor or mortgagor at the same address to which the notice is sent by registered or certified
mail pursuant to subdivision (b) or (c). The person shall execute and retain an affidavit identifying the
notice mailed, showing the name
and residence or business address of that person, that he or she is over the age of 18 years, the date
of deposit in the mail, the name and address of the trustor or mortgagor to whom sent, and that the
envelope was sealed and deposited in the mail with postage fully prepaid. In the absence of fraud, the
affidavit required by this subdivision shall establish a conclusive presumption of mailing.
(f) With respect to separate interests governed by an association, as defined in subdivision (a) of
Section 1351, the association may cause to be filed in the office of the recorder in the county in which
the separate interests are situated a request that a mortgagee, trustee, or other person authorized to
record a notice of default regarding any of those separate interests mail to the association a copy of any
trustee’s deed upon sale concerning a separate interest. The request shall include a legal description
or the assessor’s parcel number of the separate interests. A request recorded pursuant to this
subdivision shall include the name and address of the association and a statement that it is a
homeowners’ association. Subsequent requests of an association shall supersede prior requests. A
request pursuant to this subdivision shall be recorded before the filing of a notice of default. The
mortgagee, trustee, or other authorized person shall mail the requested information to the association
within 15 business days following the date the trustee’s deed is recorded. Failure to mail the request,
pursuant to this
subdivision, shall not affect the title to real property.
(g) No request for a copy of any notice filed for record pursuant to this section, no statement or
allegation in the request, and no record thereof shall affect the title to real property or be deemed notice
to any person that any person requesting copies of notice has or claims any right, title, or interest in, or
lien or charge upon the property described in the deed of trust or mortgage referred to therein.
(h) “Business day,” as used in this section, has the meaning
specified in Section 9.

Reinstatement After Default in Payment – Notice
2924c. (a) (1) Whenever all or a portion of the principal sum of
any obligation secured by deed of trust or mortgage on real property or an estate for years therein
hereafter executed has, prior to the maturity date fixed in that obligation, become due or been declared
due by reason of default in payment of interest or of any installment of principal, or by reason of failure
of trustor or mortgagor to pay, in accordance with the terms of that obligation or of the deed of trust or
mortgage, taxes, assessments, premiums for insurance, or advances made by beneficiary or
mortgagee in accordance with the
terms of that obligation or of the deed of trust or mortgage, the
trustor or mortgagor or his or her successor in interest in the
mortgaged or trust property or any part thereof, or any beneficiary under a subordinate deed of trust or
any other person having a subordinate lien or encumbrance of record thereon, at any time within the
period specified in subdivision (e), if the power of sale therein is to be exercised, or, otherwise at any
time prior to entry of the decree of foreclosure, may pay to the beneficiary or the mortgagee or their
successors in interest, respectively, the entire amount due, at the time payment is tendered, with
respect to (A) all amounts of principal, interest, taxes, assessments, insurance premiums, or advances
actually known by the beneficiary to be, and
that are, in default and shown in the notice of default, under the
terms of the deed of trust or mortgage and the obligation secured thereby, (B) all amounts in default on
recurring obligations not shown in the notice of default, and (C) all reasonable costs and expenses,
subject to subdivision (c), which are actually incurred in enforcing the terms of the obligation, deed of
trust, or mortgage, and trustee’s or attorney’s fees, subject to subdivision (d), other than the portion of
principal as would not then be due had no default
occurred, and thereby cure the default theretofore existing, and
thereupon, all proceedings theretofore had or instituted shall be dismissed or discontinued and the
obligation and deed of trust or mortgage shall be reinstated and shall be and remain in force and effect,
the same as if the acceleration had not occurred. This section does not apply to bonds or other
evidences of indebtedness authorized or permitted to be issued by the Commissioner of Corporations
or made by a public utility subject to the Public Utilities Code. For the purposes of this subdivision, the
term “recurring obligation” means all amounts of principal and interest on the loan, or rents, subject to
the deed of trust or mortgage in default due after the notice of default is recorded; all amounts of
principal and interest or rents advanced on senior liens or leaseholds which are advanced after the
recordation of the notice of
default; and payments of taxes, assessments, and hazard insurance advanced after recordation of the
notice of default. Where the beneficiary or mortgagee has made no advances on defaults which would
constitute recurring obligations, the beneficiary or mortgagee may require the trustor or mortgagor to
provide reliable written evidence that the amounts have been paid prior to reinstatement.
(2) If the trustor, mortgagor, or other person authorized to cure the default pursuant to this subdivision
does cure the default, the beneficiary or mortgagee or the agent for the beneficiary or mortgagee shall,
within 21 days following the reinstatement, execute and deliver to the trustee a notice of rescission
which rescinds the declaration of default and demand for sale and advises the trustee of the date of
reinstatement. The trustee shall cause the notice of
rescission to be recorded within 30 days of receipt of the notice of rescission and of all allowable fees
and costs.
No charge, except for the recording fee, shall be made against the trustor or mortgagor for the
execution and recordation of the notice which rescinds the declaration of default and demand for sale.
(b) (1) The notice, of any default described in this section,
recorded pursuant to Section 2924, and mailed to any person pursuant to Section 2924b, shall begin
with the following statement, printed or typed thereon:
“IMPORTANT NOTICE [14-point boldface type if printed or in
capital letters if typed]
IF YOUR PROPERTY IS IN FORECLOSURE BECAUSE YOU ARE BEHIND IN YOUR PAYMENTS, IT MAY
BE SOLD WITHOUT ANY COURT ACTION, [14-point boldface type if printed or in capital letters if typed]
and you may have the
legal right to bring your account in good standing by paying all of your past due payments plus permitted
costs and expenses within the time permitted by law for reinstatement of your account, which is
normally five business days prior to the date set for the sale of your property. No sale date may be set
until three months from the date this notice of default may be recorded (which date of recordation
appears on this notice).

This amount is ____________ as of ______________ (Date)
and will increase until your account becomes current.

While your property is in foreclosure, you still must pay other
obligations (such as insurance and taxes) required by your note and deed of trust or mortgage. If you
fail to make future payments on the loan, pay taxes on the property, provide insurance on the property,
or pay other obligations as required in the note and deed of trust or mortgage, the beneficiary or
mortgagee may insist that you do so in order to reinstate your account in good standing. In addition, the
beneficiary or mortgagee may require as a condition to reinstatement
that you provide reliable written evidence that you paid all senior liens, property taxes, and hazard
insurance premiums.
Upon your written request, the beneficiary or mortgagee will give you a written itemization of the entire
amount you must pay. You may not have to pay the entire unpaid portion of your account, even though
full payment was demanded, but you must pay all amounts in default at the time payment is made.
However, you and your beneficiary or mortgagee may mutually agree in writing prior to the time the
notice of sale is posted (which may not be earlier than the end of the three-month period stated above)
to, among other things, (1) provide additional time in which to cure the default by transfer
of the property or otherwise; or (2) establish a schedule of payments in order to cure your default; or
both (1) and (2).
Following the expiration of the time period referred to in the
first paragraph of this notice, unless the obligation being
foreclosed upon or a separate written agreement between you and your creditor permits a longer
period, you have only the legal right to stop the sale of your property by paying the entire amount
demanded by your creditor.
To find out the amount you must pay, or to arrange for payment to stop the foreclosure, or if your
property is in foreclosure for any other reason, contact:

____________________________________
(Name of beneficiary or mortgagee)
____________________________________
(Mailing address)
____________________________________
(Telephone)

If you have any questions, you should contact a lawyer or the
governmental agency which may have insured your loan.
Notwithstanding the fact that your property is in foreclosure, you may offer your property for sale,
provided the sale is concluded prior to the conclusion of the foreclosure.
Remember, YOU MAY LOSE LEGAL RIGHTS IF YOU DO NOT TAKE PROMPT ACTION. [14-point boldface
type if printed or in capital letters if typed]”

Unless otherwise specified, the notice, if printed, shall appear
in at least 12-point boldface type.
If the obligation secured by the deed of trust or mortgage is a
contract or agreement described in paragraph (1) or (4) of
subdivision (a) of Section 1632, the notice required herein shall be in Spanish if the trustor requested a
Spanish language translation of the contract or agreement pursuant to Section 1632. If the obligation
secured by the deed of trust or mortgage is contained in a home improvement contract, as defined in
Sections 7151.2 and 7159 of the Business and Professions Code, which is subject to Title 2
(commencing with Section 1801), the seller shall specify on the contract whether or not the contract
was principally negotiated in Spanish and if the contract was principally negotiated in Spanish, the
notice required herein shall be in Spanish. No assignee of the
contract or person authorized to record the notice of default shall incur any obligation or liability for
failing to mail a notice in
Spanish unless Spanish is specified in the contract or the assignee or person has actual knowledge
that the secured obligation was principally negotiated in Spanish. Unless specified in writing to the
contrary, a copy of the notice required by subdivision (c) of Section 2924b shall be in English.
(2) Any failure to comply with the provisions of this subdivision shall not affect the validity of a sale in
favor of a bona fide purchaser or the rights of an encumbrancer for value and without notice.
(c) Costs and expenses which may be charged pursuant to Sections 2924 to 2924i, inclusive, shall be
limited to the costs incurred for recording, mailing, including certified and express mail charges,
publishing, and posting notices required by Sections 2924 to 2924i, inclusive, postponement pursuant
to Section 2924g not to exceed fifty dollars ($50) per postponement and a fee for a trustee’s sale
guarantee or, in the event of judicial foreclosure, a litigation guarantee. For purposes of this
subdivision, a trustee or beneficiary
may purchase a trustee’s sale guarantee at a rate meeting the
standards contained in Sections 12401.1 and 12401.3 of the Insurance Code.
(d) Trustee’s or attorney’s fees which may be charged pursuant to subdivision (a), or until the notice of
sale is deposited in the mail to the trustor as provided in Section 2924b, if the sale is by power of sale
contained in the deed of trust or mortgage, or, otherwise at any time prior to the decree of foreclosure,
are hereby authorized to be in a base amount that does not exceed three hundred dollars ($300) if the
unpaid principal sum secured is one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000) or less, or two hundred
fifty dollars ($250) if the unpaid principal sum secured exceeds one hundred fifty
thousand dollars ($150,000), plus one-half of 1 percent of the unpaid principal sum secured exceeding
fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) up to and including one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000), plus
one-quarter of 1 percent of any portion of the unpaid principal sum secured exceeding one hundred fifty
thousand dollars ($150,000) up to and including five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000), plus one-
eighth of 1 percent of any portion of the unpaid principal sum secured exceeding five hundred thousand
dollars ($500,000). Any
charge for trustee’s or attorney’s fees authorized by this
subdivision shall be conclusively presumed to be lawful and valid where the charge does not exceed
the amounts authorized herein. For purposes of this subdivision, the unpaid principal sum secured
shall determined as of the date the notice of default is recorded.
(e) Reinstatement of a monetary default under the terms of an
obligation secured by a deed of trust, or mortgage may be made at any time within the period
commencing with the date of recordation of the notice of default until five business days prior to the
date of sale set forth in the initial recorded notice of sale.
In the event the sale does not take place on the date set forth in the initial recorded notice of sale or a
subsequent recorded notice of sale is required to be given, the right of reinstatement shall be revived
as of the date of recordation of the subsequent notice of sale, and shall continue from that date until
five business days prior to the date of sale set forth in the subsequently recorded notice of sale.
In the event the date of sale is postponed on the date of sale set forth in either an initial or any
subsequent notice of sale, or is postponed on the date declared for sale at an immediately preceding
postponement of sale, and, the postponement is for a period which exceeds five business days from
the date set forth in the notice of sale, or declared at the time of postponement, then the right of
reinstatement is revived as of the date of postponement and shall continue from that date until five
business days prior to the date of sale declared at the time of the postponement.
Nothing contained herein shall give rise to a right of
reinstatement during the period of five business days prior to the date of sale, whether the date of sale
is noticed in a notice of sale or declared at a postponement of sale.
Pursuant to the terms of this subdivision, no beneficiary,
trustee, mortgagee, or their agents or successors shall be liable in any manner to a trustor, mortgagor,
their agents or successors or any beneficiary under a subordinate deed of trust or mortgage or any
other person having a subordinate lien or encumbrance of record thereon for the failure to allow a
reinstatement of the obligation secured by a deed of trust or mortgage during the period of five
business days prior to the sale of the security property, and no such right of reinstatement during this
period is created by this section. Any right of reinstatement created by this section is terminated five
business days prior to the date of sale set forth in the initial date of sale, and is revived only as
prescribed herein and only as of the date set forth herein.
As used in this subdivision, the term “business day” has the same meaning as specified in Section 9.

Payment of Costs and Expenses — Payment of Trustee’s and Attorney’s Fees —
Prohibition Against Rebate or Kickback
2924d. (a) Commencing with the date that the notice of sale is
deposited in the mail, as provided in Section 2924b, and until the property is sold pursuant to the power
of sale contained in the mortgage or deed of trust, a beneficiary, trustee, mortgagee, or his
or her agent or successor in interest, may demand and receive from a
trustor, mortgagor, or his or her agent or successor in interest, or
any beneficiary under a subordinate deed of trust, or any other
person having a subordinate lien or encumbrance of record those
reasonable costs and expenses, to the extent allowed by subdivision
(c) of Section 2924c, which are actually incurred in enforcing the
terms of the obligation and trustee’s or attorney’s fees which are
hereby authorized to be in a base amount which does not exceed four
hundred twenty-five dollars ($425) if the unpaid principal sum
secured is one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000) or less, or
three hundred sixty dollars ($360) if the unpaid principal sum
secured exceeds one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000), plus 1
percent of any portion of the unpaid principal sum secured exceeding
fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) up to and including one hundred
fifty thousand dollars ($150,000), plus one-half of 1 percent of any
portion of the unpaid principal sum secured exceeding one hundred
fifty thousand dollars ($150,000) up to and including five hundred
thousand dollars ($500,000), plus one-quarter of 1 percent of any
portion of the unpaid principal sum secured exceeding five hundred
thousand dollars ($500,000). For purposes of this subdivision, the
unpaid principal sum secured shall be determined as of the date the
notice of default is recorded. Any charge for trustee’s or attorney’s
fees authorized by this subdivision shall be conclusively presumed
to be lawful and valid where that charge does not exceed the amounts
authorized herein. Any charge for trustee’s or attorney’s fees made
pursuant to this subdivision shall be in lieu of and not in addition
to those charges authorized by subdivision (d) of Section 2924c.
(b) Upon the sale of property pursuant to a power of sale, a
trustee, or his or her agent or successor in interest, may demand and
receive from a beneficiary, or his or her agent or successor in
interest, or may deduct from the proceeds of the sale, those
reasonable costs and expenses, to the extent allowed by subdivision
(c) of Section 2924c, which are actually incurred in enforcing the
terms of the obligation and trustee’s or attorney’s fees which are
hereby authorized to be in an amount which does not exceed four
hundred twenty-five dollars ($425) or one percent of the unpaid
principal sum secured, whichever is greater. For purposes of this
subdivision, the unpaid principal sum secured shall be determined as
of the date the notice of default is recorded. Any charge for trustee’
s or attorney’s fees authorized by this subdivision shall be
conclusively presumed to be lawful and valid where that charge does
not exceed the amount authorized herein. Any charges for trustee’s or
attorney’s fees made pursuant to this subdivision shall be in lieu
of and not in addition to those charges authorized by subdivision (a)
of this section and subdivision (d) of Section 2924c.
(c) (1) No person shall pay or offer to pay or collect any rebate
or kickback for the referral of business involving the performance of
any act required by this article.
(2) Any person who violates this subdivision shall be liable to
the trustor for three times the amount of any rebate or kickback,
plus reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, in addition to any other
remedies provided by law.
(3) No violation of this subdivision shall affect the validity of
a sale in favor of a bona fide purchaser or the rights of an
encumbrancer for value without notice.
(d) It shall not be unlawful for a trustee to pay or offer to pay
a fee to an agent or subagent of the trustee for work performed by
the agent or subagent in discharging the trustee’s obligations under
the terms of the deed of trust. Any payment of a fee by a trustee to
an agent or subagent of the trustee for work performed by the agent
or subagent in discharging the trustee’s obligations under the terms
of the deed of trust shall be conclusively presumed to be lawful and
valid if the fee, when combined with other fees of the trustee, does
not exceed in the aggregate the trustee’s fee authorized by
subdivision (d) of Section 2924c or subdivision (a) or (b) of this
section.
(e) When a court issues a decree of foreclosure, it shall have
discretion to award attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses as are
reasonable, if provided for in the note, deed of trust, or mortgage,
pursuant to Section 580c of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Request for Written Notice of Delinquencies — Requirements
2924e. (a) The beneficiary or mortgagee of any deed of trust or
mortgage on real property either containing one to four residential
units or given to secure an original obligation not to exceed three
hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) may, with the written consent of
the trustor or mortgagor that is either effected through a signed and
dated agreement which shall be separate from other loan and security
documents or disclosed to the trustor or mortgagor in at least
10-point type, submit a written request by certified mail to the
beneficiary or mortgagee of any lien which is senior to the lien of
the requester, for written notice of any or all delinquencies of four
months or more, in payments of principal or interest on any
obligation secured by that senior lien notwithstanding that the loan
secured by the lien of the requester is not then in default as to
payments of principal or interest.
The request shall be sent to the beneficiary or mortgagee, or
agent which it might designate for the purpose of receiving loan
payments, at the address specified for the receipt of these payments,
if known, or, if not known, at the address shown on the recorded
deed of trust or mortgage.
(b) The request for notice shall identify the ownership or
security interest of the requester, the date on which the interest of
the requester will terminate as evidenced by the maturity date of
the note of the trustor or mortgagor in favor of the requester, the
name of the trustor or mortgagor and the name of the current owner of
the security property if different from the trustor or mortgagor,
the street address or other description of the security property, the
loan number (if available to the requester) of the loan secured by
the senior lien, the name and address to which notice is to be sent,
and shall include or be accompanied by the signed written consent of
the trustor or mortgagor, and a fee of forty dollars ($40). For
obligations secured by residential properties, the request shall
remain valid until withdrawn in writing and shall be applicable to
all delinquencies as provided in this section, which occur prior to
the date on which the interest of the requester will terminate as
specified in the request or the expiration date, as appropriate. For
obligations secured by nonresidential properties, the request shall
remain valid until withdrawn in writing and shall be applicable to
all delinquencies as provided in this section, which occur prior to
the date on which the interest of the requester will terminate as
specified in the request or the expiration date, as appropriate. The
beneficiary or mortgagee of obligations secured by nonresidential
properties that have sent five or more notices prior to the
expiration of the effective period of the request may charge a fee up
to fifteen dollars ($15) for each subsequent notice. A request for
notice shall be effective for five years from the mailing of the
request or the recording of that request, whichever occurs later, and
may be renewed within six months prior to its expiration date by
sending the beneficiary or mortgagee, or agent, as the case may be,
at the address to which original requests for notice are to be sent,
a copy of the earlier request for notice together with a signed
statement that the request is renewed and a renewal fee of fifteen
dollars ($15). Upon timely submittal of a renewal request for notice,
the effectiveness of the original request is continued for five
years from the time when it would otherwise have lapsed. Succeeding
renewal requests may be submitted in the same manner. The request for
notice and renewals thereof shall be recorded in the office of the
county recorder of the county in which the security real property is
situated. The rights and obligations specified in this section shall
inure to the benefit of, or pass to, as the case may be, successors
in interest of parties specified in this section. Any successor in
interest of a party entitled to notice under this section shall file
a request for that notice with any beneficiary or mortgagee of the
senior lien and shall pay a processing fee of fifteen dollars ($15).
No new written consent shall be required from the trustor or
mortgagor.
(c) Unless the delinquency has been cured, within 15 days
following the end of four months from any delinquency in payments of
principal or interest on any obligation secured by the senior lien
which delinquency exists or occurs on or after 10 days from the
mailing of the request for notice or the recording of that request,
whichever occurs later, the beneficiary or mortgagee shall give
written notice to the requester of the fact of any delinquency and
the amount thereof.
The notice shall be given by personal service, or by deposit in
the mail, first-class postage paid. Following the recording of any
notice of default pursuant to Section 2924 with respect to the same
delinquency, no notice or further notice shall be required pursuant
to this section.
(d) If the beneficiary or mortgagee of any such senior lien fails
to give notice to the requester as required in subdivision (c), and a
subsequent foreclosure or trustee’s sale of the security property
occurs, the beneficiary or mortgagee shall be liable to the requester
for any monetary damage due to the failure to provide notice within
the time period specified in subdivision (c) which the requester has
sustained from the date on which notice should have been given to the
earlier of the date on which the notice is given or the date of the
recording of the notice of default under Section 2924, and shall also
forfeit to the requester the sum of three hundred dollars ($300). A
showing by the beneficiary or mortgagee by a preponderance of the
evidence that the failure to provide timely notice as required by
subdivision (c) resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the
maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such error
shall be a defense to any liability for that failure.
(e) If any beneficiary or mortgagee, or agent which it had
designated for the purpose of receiving loan payments, has been
succeeded in interest by any other person, any request for notice
received pursuant to this section shall be transmitted promptly to
that person.
(f) Any failure to comply with the provisions of this section
shall not affect the validity of a sale in favor of a bona fide
purchaser or the rights of an encumbrancer for value and without
notice.
(g) Upon satisfaction of an obligation secured by a junior lien
with respect to which a notice request was made pursuant to this
section, the beneficiary or mortgagee that made the request shall
communicate that fact in writing to the senior lienholder to whom the
request was made. The communication shall specify that provision of
notice pursuant to the prior request under this section is no longer
required.

Notice of Sale of Property under Power of Sale in Deed of Trust or Mortgage
2924f. (a) As used in this section and Sections 2924g and 2924h,
“property” means real property or a leasehold estate therein, and
“calendar week” means Monday through Saturday, inclusive.
(b) (1) Except as provided in subdivision (c), before any sale of
property can be made under the power of sale contained in any deed of
trust or mortgage, or any resale resulting from a rescission for a
failure of consideration pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section
2924h, notice of the sale thereof shall be given by posting a written
notice of the time of sale and of the street address and the
specific place at the street address where the sale will be held, and
describing the property to be sold, at least 20 days before the date
of sale in one public place in the city where the property is to be
sold, if the property is to be sold in a city, or, if not, then in
one public place in the judicial district in which the property is to
be sold, and publishing a copy once a week for three consecutive
calendar weeks, the first publication to be at least 20 days before
the date of sale, in a newspaper of general circulation published in
the city in which the property or some part thereof is situated, if
any part thereof is situated in a city, if not, then in a newspaper
of general circulation published in the judicial district in which
the property or some part thereof is situated, or in case no
newspaper of general circulation is published in the city or judicial
district, as the case may be, in a newspaper of general circulation
published in the county in which the property or some part thereof is
situated, or in case no newspaper of general circulation is
published in the city or judicial district or county, as the case may
be, in a newspaper of general circulation published in the county in
this state that (A) is contiguous to the county in which the
property or some part thereof is situated and (B) has, by comparison
with all similarly contiguous counties, the highest population based
upon total county population as determined by the most recent federal
decennial census published by the Bureau of the Census. A copy of
the notice of sale shall also be posted in a conspicuous place on the
property to be sold at least 20 days before the date of sale, where
possible and where not restricted for any reason. If the property is
a single-family residence the posting shall be on a door of the
residence, but, if not possible or restricted, then the notice shall
be posted in a conspicuous place on the property; however, if access
is denied because a common entrance to the property is restricted by
a guard gate or similar impediment, the property may be posted at
that guard gate or similar impediment to any development community.
Additionally, the notice of sale shall conform to the minimum
requirements of Section 6043 of the Government Code and be recorded
with the county recorder of the county in which the property or some
part thereof is situated at least 20 days prior to the date of sale.
The notice of sale shall contain the name, street address in this
state, which may reflect an agent of the trustee, and either a
toll-free telephone number or telephone number in this state of the
trustee, and the name of the original trustor, and also shall contain
the statement required by paragraph (3) of subdivision (c). In
addition to any other description of the property, the notice shall
describe the property by giving its street address, if any, or other
common designation, if any, and a county assessor’s parcel number;
but if the property has no street address or other common
designation, the notice shall contain a legal description of the
property, the name and address of the beneficiary at whose request
the sale is to be conducted, and a statement that directions may be
obtained pursuant to a written request submitted to the beneficiary
within 10 days from the first publication of the notice. Directions
shall be deemed reasonably sufficient to locate the property if
information as to the location of the property is given by reference
to the direction and approximate distance from the nearest
crossroads, frontage road, or access road. If a legal description or
a county assessor’s parcel number and either a street address or
another common designation of the property is given, the validity of
the notice and the validity of the sale shall not be affected by the
fact that the street address, other common designation, name and
address of the beneficiary, or the directions obtained therefrom are
erroneous or that the street address, other common designation, name
and address of the beneficiary, or directions obtained therefrom are
omitted. The term “newspaper of general circulation,” as used in this
section, has the same meaning as defined in Article 1 (commencing
with Section 6000) of Chapter 1 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the
Government Code.
The notice of sale shall contain a statement of the total amount
of the unpaid balance of the obligation secured by the property to be
sold and reasonably estimated costs, expenses, advances at the time
of the initial publication of the notice of sale, and, if republished
pursuant to a cancellation of a cash equivalent pursuant to
subdivision (d) of Section 2924h, a reference of that fact; provided,
that the trustee shall incur no liability for any good faith error
in stating the proper amount, including any amount provided in good
faith by or on behalf of the beneficiary. An inaccurate statement of
this amount shall not affect the validity of any sale to a bona fide
purchaser for value, nor shall the failure to post the notice of sale
on a door as provided by this subdivision affect the validity of any
sale to a bona fide purchaser for value.
(2) If the sale of the property is to be a unified sale as
provided in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of
Section 9604 of the Commercial Code, the notice of sale shall also
contain a description of the personal property or fixtures to be
sold. In the case where it is contemplated that all of the personal
property or fixtures are to be sold, the description in the notice of
the personal property or fixtures shall be sufficient if it is the
same as the description of the personal property or fixtures
contained in the agreement creating the security interest in or
encumbrance on the personal property or fixtures or the filed
financing statement relating to the personal property or fixtures. In
all other cases, the description in the notice shall be sufficient
if it would be a sufficient description of the personal property or
fixtures under Section 9108 of the Commercial Code. Inclusion of a
reference to or a description of personal property or fixtures in a
notice of sale hereunder shall not constitute an election by the
secured party to conduct a unified sale pursuant to subparagraph (B)
of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 9604 of the Commercial
Code, shall not obligate the secured party to conduct a unified sale
pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of
Section 9604 of the Commercial Code, and in no way shall render
defective or noncomplying either that notice or a sale pursuant to
that notice by reason of the fact that the sale includes none or less
than all of the personal property or fixtures referred to or
described in the notice. This paragraph shall not otherwise affect
the obligations or duties of a secured party under the Commercial
Code.
(c) (1) This subdivision applies only to deeds of trust or
mortgages which contain a power of sale and which are secured by real
property containing a single-family, owner-occupied residence, where
the obligation secured by the deed of trust or mortgage is contained
in a contract for goods or services subject to the provisions of the
Unruh Act (Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1801) of Title 2 of
Part 4 of Division 3).
(2) Except as otherwise expressly set forth in this subdivision,
all other provisions of law relating to the exercise of a power of
sale shall govern the exercise of a power of sale contained in a deed
of trust or mortgage described in paragraph (1).
(3) If any default of the obligation secured by a deed of trust or
mortgage described in paragraph (1) has not been cured within 30
days after the recordation of the notice of default, the trustee or
mortgagee shall mail to the trustor or mortgagor, at his or her last
known address, a copy of the following statement:

YOU ARE IN DEFAULT UNDER A
_______________________________________________,
(Deed of trust or mortgage)
DATED ____. UNLESS YOU TAKE ACTION TO PROTECT
YOUR PROPERTY, IT MAY BE SOLD AT A PUBLIC SALE.
IF
YOU NEED AN EXPLANATION OF THE NATURE OF THE
PROCEEDING AGAINST YOU, YOU SHOULD CONTACT A
LAWYER.

(4) All sales of real property pursuant to a power of sale
contained in any deed of trust or mortgage described in paragraph (1)
shall be held in the county where the residence is located and shall
be made to the person making the highest offer. The trustee may
receive offers during the 10-day period immediately prior to the date
of sale and if any offer is accepted in writing by both the trustor
or mortgagor and the beneficiary or mortgagee prior to the time set
for sale, the sale shall be postponed to a date certain and prior to
which the property may be conveyed by the trustor to the person
making the offer according to its terms. The offer is revocable until
accepted. The performance of the offer, following acceptance,
according to its terms, by a conveyance of the property to the
offeror, shall operate to terminate any further proceeding under the
notice of sale and it shall be deemed revoked.
(5) In addition to the trustee fee pursuant to Section 2924c, the
trustee or mortgagee pursuant to a deed of trust or mortgage subject
to this subdivision shall be entitled to charge an additional fee of
fifty dollars ($50).
(6) This subdivision applies only to property on which notices of
default were filed on or after the effective date of this
subdivision.

Procedure for Sale of Property — Postponement of Sale
2924g. (a) All sales of property under the power of sale contained
in any deed of trust or mortgage shall be held in the county where
the property or some part thereof is situated, and shall be made at
auction, to the highest bidder, between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5
p.m. on any business day, Monday through Friday.
The sale shall commence at the time and location specified in the
notice of sale. Any postponement shall be announced at the time and
location specified in the notice of sale for commencement of the sale
or pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (c).
If the sale of more than one parcel of real property has been
scheduled for the same time and location by the same trustee, (1) any
postponement of any of the sales shall be announced at the time
published in the notice of sale, (2) the first sale shall commence at
the time published in the notice of sale or immediately after the
announcement of any postponement, and (3) each subsequent sale shall
take place as soon as possible after the preceding sale has been
completed.
(b) When the property consists of several known lots or parcels,
they shall be sold separately unless the deed of trust or mortgage
provides otherwise. When a portion of the property is claimed by a
third person, who requires it to be sold separately, the portion
subject to the claim may be thus sold. The trustor, if present at the
sale, may also, unless the deed of trust or mortgage otherwise
provides, direct the order in which property shall be sold, when the
property consists of several known lots or parcels which may be sold
to advantage separately, and the trustee shall follow that direction.
After sufficient property has been sold to satisfy the indebtedness,
no more can be sold.
If the property under power of sale is in two or more counties,
the public auction sale of all of the property under the power of
sale may take place in any one of the counties where the property or
a portion thereof is located.
(c) (1) There may be a postponement or postponements of the sale
proceedings, including a postponement upon instruction by the
beneficiary to the trustee that the sale proceedings be postponed, at
any time prior to the completion of the sale for any period of time
not to exceed a total of 365 days from the date set forth in the
notice of sale. The trustee shall postpone the sale in accordance
with any of the following:
(A) Upon the order of any court of competent jurisdiction.
(B) If stayed by operation of law.
(C) By mutual agreement, whether oral or in writing, of any
trustor and any beneficiary or any mortgagor and any mortgagee.
(D) At the discretion of the trustee.
(2) In the event that the sale proceedings are postponed for a
period or periods totaling more than 365 days, the scheduling of any
further sale proceedings shall be preceded by giving a new notice of
sale in the manner prescribed in Section 2924f. New fees incurred for
the new notice of sale shall not exceed the amounts specified in
Sections 2924c and 2924d, and shall not exceed reasonable costs that
are necessary to comply with this paragraph.
(d) The notice of each postponement and the reason therefor shall
be given by public declaration by the trustee at the time and place
last appointed for sale. A public declaration of postponement shall
also set forth the new date, time, and place of sale and the place of
sale shall be the same place as originally fixed by the trustee for
the sale. No other notice of postponement need be given. However, the
sale shall be conducted no sooner than on the seventh day after the
earlier of (1) dismissal of the action or (2) expiration or
termination of the injunction, restraining order, or stay that
required postponement of the sale, whether by entry of an order by a
court of competent jurisdiction, operation of law, or otherwise,
unless the injunction, restraining order, or subsequent order
expressly directs the conduct of the sale within that seven-day
period. For purposes of this subdivision, the seven-day period shall
not include the day on which the action is dismissed, or the day on
which the injunction, restraining order, or stay expires or is
terminated. If the sale had been scheduled to occur, but this
subdivision precludes its conduct during that seven-day period, a new
notice of postponement shall be given if the sale had been scheduled
to occur during that seven-day period. The trustee shall maintain
records of each postponement and the reason therefor.
(e) Notwithstanding the time periods established under subdivision
(d), if postponement of a sale is based on a stay imposed by Title
11 of the United States Code (bankruptcy), the sale shall be
conducted no sooner than the expiration of the stay imposed by that
title and the seven-day provision of subdivision (d) shall not apply.

Trustee’s Sale — Bidding Rules
2924h. (a) Each and every bid made by a bidder at a trustee’s sale
under a power of sale contained in a deed of trust or mortgage shall
be deemed to be an irrevocable offer by that bidder to purchase the
property being sold by the trustee under the power of sale for the
amount of the bid. Any second or subsequent bid by the same bidder or
any other bidder for a higher amount shall be a cancellation of the
prior bid.
(b) At the trustee’s sale the trustee shall have the right (1) to
require every bidder to show evidence of the bidder’s ability to
deposit with the trustee the full amount of his or her final bid in
cash, a cashier’s check drawn on a state or national bank, a check
drawn by a state or federal credit union, or a check drawn by a state
or federal savings and loan association, savings association, or
savings bank specified in Section 5102 of the Financial Code and
authorized to do business in this state, or a cash equivalent which
has been designated in the notice of sale as acceptable to the
trustee prior to, and as a condition to, the recognizing of the bid,
and to conditionally accept and hold these amounts for the duration
of the sale, and (2) to require the last and highest bidder to
deposit, if not deposited previously, the full amount of the bidder’s
final bid in cash, a cashier’s check drawn on a state or national
bank, a check drawn by a state or federal credit union, or a check
drawn by a state or federal savings and loan association, savings
association, or savings bank specified in Section 5102 of the
Financial Code and authorized to do business in this state, or a cash
equivalent which has been designated in the notice of sale as
acceptable to the trustee, immediately prior to the completion of the
sale, the completion of the sale being so announced by the fall of
the hammer or in another customary manner. The present beneficiary of
the deed of trust under foreclosure shall have the right to offset
his or her bid or bids only to the extent of the total amount due the
beneficiary including the trustee’s fees and expenses.
(c) In the event the trustee accepts a check drawn by a credit
union or a savings and loan association pursuant to this subdivision
or a cash equivalent designated in the notice of sale, the trustee
may withhold the issuance of the trustee’s deed to the successful
bidder submitting the check drawn by a state or federal credit union
or savings and loan association or the cash equivalent until funds
become available to the payee or endorsee as a matter of right.
For the purposes of this subdivision, the trustee’s sale shall be
deemed final upon the acceptance of the last and highest bid, and
shall be deemed perfected as of 8 a.m. on the actual date of sale if
the trustee’s deed is recorded within 15 calendar days after the
sale, or the next business day following the 15th day if the county
recorder in which the property is located is closed on the 15th day.
However, the sale is subject to an automatic rescission for a failure
of consideration in the event the funds are not “available for
withdrawal” as defined in Section 12413.1 of the Insurance Code. The
trustee shall send a notice of rescission for a failure of
consideration to the last and highest bidder submitting the check or
alternative instrument, if the address of the last and highest bidder
is known to the trustee.
If a sale results in an automatic right of rescission for failure
of consideration pursuant to this subdivision, the interest of any
lienholder shall be reinstated in the same priority as if the
previous sale had not occurred.
(d) If the trustee has not required the last and highest bidder to
deposit the cash, a cashier’s check drawn on a state or national
bank, a check drawn by a state or federal credit union, or a check
drawn by a state or federal savings and loan association, savings
association, or savings bank specified in Section 5102 of the
Financial Code and authorized to do business in this state, or a cash
equivalent which has been designated in the notice of sale as
acceptable to the trustee in the manner set forth in paragraph (2) of
subdivision (b), the trustee shall complete the sale. If the last
and highest bidder then fails to deliver to the trustee, when
demanded, the amount of his or her final bid in cash, a cashier’s
check drawn on a state or national bank, a check drawn by a state or
federal credit union, or a check drawn by a state or federal savings
and loan association, savings association, or savings bank specified
in Section 5102 of the Financial Code and authorized to do business
in this state, or a cash equivalent which has been designated in the
notice of sale as acceptable to the trustee, that bidder shall be
liable to the trustee for all damages which the trustee may sustain
by the refusal to deliver to the trustee the amount of the final bid,
including any court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.
If the last and highest bidder willfully fails to deliver to the
trustee the amount of his or her final bid in cash, a cashier’s check
drawn on a state or national bank, a check drawn by a state or
federal credit union, or a check drawn by a state or federal savings
and loan association, savings association, or savings bank specified
in Section 5102 of the Financial Code and authorized to do business
in this state, or a cash equivalent which has been designated in the
notice of sale as acceptable to the trustee, or if the last and
highest bidder cancels a cashiers check drawn on a state or national
bank, a check drawn by a state or federal credit union, or a check
drawn by a state or federal savings and loan association, savings
association, or savings bank specified in Section 5102 of the
Financial Code and authorized to do business in this state, or a cash
equivalent that has been designated in the notice of sale as
acceptable to the trustee, that bidder shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than two thousand five
hundred dollars ($2,500).
In the event the last and highest bidder cancels an instrument
submitted to the trustee as a cash equivalent, the trustee shall
provide a new notice of sale in the manner set forth in Section 2924f
and shall be entitled to recover the costs of the new notice of sale
as provided in Section 2924c.
(e) Any postponement or discontinuance of the sale proceedings
shall be a cancellation of the last bid.
(f) In the event that this section conflicts with any other
statute, then this section shall prevail.
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person, acting alone or in
concert with others, (1) to offer to accept or accept from another,
any consideration of any type not to bid, or (2) to fix or restrain
bidding in any manner, at a sale of property conducted pursuant to a
power of sale in a deed of trust or mortgage. However, it shall not
be unlawful for any person, including a trustee, to state that a
property subject to a recorded notice of default or subject to a sale
conducted pursuant to this chapter is being sold in an “as-is”
condition.
In addition to any other remedies, any person committing any act
declared unlawful by this subdivision or any act which would operate
as a fraud or deceit upon any beneficiary, trustor, or junior lienor
shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than ten thousand dollars
($10,000) or imprisoned in the county jail for not more than one
year, or be punished by both that fine and imprisonment.

Secured Obligations — Balloon Payments
2924i. (a) This section applies to loans secured by a deed of trust
or mortgage on real property containing one to four residential
units at least one of which at the time the loan is made is or is to
be occupied by the borrower if the loan is for a period in excess of
one year and is a balloon payment loan.
(b) This section shall not apply to (1) open end credit as defined
in Regulation Z, whether or not the transaction is otherwise subject
to Regulation Z, (2) transactions subject to Section 2956, or (3)
loans made for the principal purpose of financing the construction of
one or more residential units.
(c) At least 90 days but not more than 150 days prior to the due
date of the final payment on a loan that is subject to this section,
the holder of the loan shall deliver or mail by first-class mail,
with a certificate of mailing obtained from the United States Postal
Service, to the trustor, or his or her successor in interest, at the
last known address of that person, a written notice which shall
include all of the following:
(1) A statement of the name and address of the person to whom the
final payment is required to be paid.
(2) The date on or before which the final payment is required to
be paid.
(3) The amount of the final payment, or if the exact amount is
unknown, a good faith estimate of the amount thereof, including
unpaid principal, interest and any other charges, such amount to be
determined assuming timely payment in full of all scheduled
installments coming due between the date the notice is prepared and
the date when the final payment is due.
(4) If the borrower has a contractual right to refinance the final
payment, a statement to that effect.
If the due date of the final payment of a loan subject to this
section is extended prior to the time notice is otherwise required
under this subdivision, this notice requirement shall apply only to
the due date as extended (or as subsequently extended).
(d) For purposes of this section:
(1) A “balloon payment loan” is a loan which provides for a final
payment as originally scheduled which is more than twice the amount
of any of the immediately preceding six regularly scheduled payments
or which contains a call provision; provided, however, that if the
call provision is not exercised by the holder of the loan, the
existence of the unexercised call provision shall not cause the loan
to be deemed to be a balloon payment loan.
(2) “Call provision” means a loan contract term that provides the
holder of the loan with the right to call the loan due and payable
either after a specified period has elapsed following closing or
after a specified date.
(3) “Regulation Z” means any rule, regulation, or interpretation
promulgated by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
under the Federal Truth in Lending Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. Sec.
1601 et seq.), and any interpretation or approval thereof issued by
an official or employee of the Federal Reserve System duly authorized
by the board under the Truth in Lending Act, as amended, to issue
such interpretations or approvals.
(e) Failure to provide notice as required by subdivision (a) does
not extinguish any obligation of payment by the borrower, except that
the due date for any balloon payment shall be the date specified in
the balloon payment note, or 90 days from the date of delivery or
mailing of the notice required by subdivision (a), or the due date
specified in the notice required by subdivision (a), whichever date
is later. If the operation of this section acts to extend the term of
any note, interest shall continue to accrue for the extended term at
the contract rate and payments shall continue to be due at any
periodic interval and on any payment schedule specified in the note
and shall be credited to principal or interest under the terms of the
note. Default in any extended periodic payment shall be considered a
default under terms of the note or security instrument.
(f) (1) The validity of any credit document or of any security
document subject to the provisions of this section shall not be
invalidated solely because of the failure of any person to comply
with this section. However, any person who willfully violates any
provision of this section shall be liable in the amount of actual
damages suffered by the debtor as the proximate result of the
violation, and, if the debtor prevails in any suit to recover that
amount, for reasonable attorney’s fees.
(2) No person may be held liable in any action under this section
if it is shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the violation
was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error
notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adopted to
avoid any such error.
(g) The provisions of this section shall apply to any note
executed on or after January 1, 1984.

Conflicting Claims to Proceeds — Trustee’s Notice; Procedure
2924j. (a) Unless an interpleader action has been filed, within 30
days of the execution of the trustee’s deed resulting from a sale in
which there are proceeds remaining after payment of the amounts
required by paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (a) of Section
2924k, the trustee shall send written notice to all persons with
recorded interests in the real property as of the date immediately
prior to the trustee’s sale who would be entitled to notice pursuant
to subdivisions (b) and (c) of Section 2924b. The notice shall be
sent by first-class mail in the manner provided in paragraph (1) of
subdivision (c) of Section 2924b and inform each entitled person of
each of the following:
(1) That there has been a trustee’s sale of the described real
property.
(2) That the noticed person may have a claim to all or a portion
of the sale proceeds remaining after payment of the amounts required
by paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 2924k.
(3) The noticed person may contact the trustee at the address
provided in the notice to pursue any potential claim.
(4) That before the trustee can act, the noticed person may be
required to present proof that the person holds the beneficial
interest in the obligation and the security interest therefor. In the
case of a promissory note secured by a deed of trust, proof that the
person holds the beneficial interest may include the original
promissory note and assignment of beneficial interests related
thereto. The noticed person shall also submit a written claim to the
trustee, executed under penalty of perjury, stating the following:
(A) The amount of the claim to the date of trustee’s sale.
(B) An itemized statement of the principal, interest, and other
charges.
(C) That claims must be received by the trustee at the address
stated in the notice no later than 30 days after the date the trustee
sends notice to the potential claimant.
(b) The trustee shall exercise due diligence to determine the
priority of the written claims received by the trustee to the trustee’
s sale surplus proceeds from those persons to whom notice was sent
pursuant to subdivision (a). In the event there is no dispute as to
the priority of the written claims submitted to the trustee, proceeds
shall be paid within 30 days after the conclusion of the notice
period. If the trustee has failed to determine the priority of
written claims within 90 days following the 30-day notice period,
then within 10 days thereafter the trustee shall deposit the funds
with the clerk of the court pursuant to subdivision (c) or file an
interpleader action pursuant to subdivision (e). Nothing in this
section shall preclude any person from pursuing other remedies or
claims as to surplus proceeds.
(c) If, after due diligence, the trustee is unable to determine
the priority of the written claims received by the trustee to the
trustee’s sale surplus of multiple persons or if the trustee
determines there is a conflict between potential claimants, the
trustee may file a declaration of the unresolved claims and deposit
with the clerk of the superior court of the county in which the sale
occurred, that portion of the sales proceeds that cannot be
distributed, less any fees charged by the clerk pursuant to this
subdivision. The declaration shall specify the date of the trustee’s
sale, a description of the property, the names and addresses of all
persons sent notice pursuant to subdivision (a), a statement that the
trustee exercised due diligence pursuant to subdivision (b), that
the trustee provided written notice as required by subdivisions (a)
and (d) and the amount of the sales proceeds deposited by the trustee
with the court. Further, the trustee shall submit a copy of the
trustee’s sales guarantee and any information relevant to the
identity, location, and priority of the potential claimants with the
court and shall file proof of service of the notice required by
subdivision (d) on all persons described in subdivision (a).
The clerk shall deposit the amount with the county treasurer or,
if a bank account has been established for moneys held in trust under
paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 77009 of the Government
Code, in that account, subject to order of the court upon the
application of any interested party. The clerk may charge a
reasonable fee for the performance of activities pursuant to this
subdivision equal to the fee for filing an interpleader action
pursuant to Chapter 5.8 (commencing with Section 70600) of Title 8 of
the Government Code. Upon deposit of that portion of the sale
proceeds that cannot be distributed by due diligence, the trustee
shall be discharged of further responsibility for the disbursement of
sale proceeds. A deposit with the clerk of the court pursuant to
this subdivision may be either for the total proceeds of the trustee’
s sale, less any fees charged by the clerk, if a conflict or
conflicts exist with respect to the total proceeds, or that portion
that cannot be distributed after due diligence, less any fees charged
by the clerk.
(d) Before the trustee deposits the funds with the clerk of the
court pursuant to subdivision (c), the trustee shall send written
notice by first-class mail, postage prepaid, to all persons described
in subdivision (a) informing them that the trustee intends to
deposit the funds with the clerk of the court and that a claim for
the funds must be filed with the court within 30 days from the date
of the notice, providing the address of the court in which the funds
were deposited, and a telephone number for obtaining further
information.
Within 90 days after deposit with the clerk, the court shall
consider all claims filed at least 15 days before the date on which
the hearing is scheduled by the court, the clerk shall serve written
notice of the hearing by first-class mail on all claimants identified
in the trustee’s declaration at the addresses specified therein.
Where the amount of the deposit is twenty-five thousand dollars
($25,000) or less, a proceeding pursuant to this section is a limited
civil case. The court shall distribute the deposited funds to any
and all claimants entitled thereto.
(e) Nothing in this section restricts the ability of a trustee to
file an interpleader action in order to resolve a dispute about the
proceeds of a trustee’s sale. Once an interpleader action has been
filed, thereafter the provisions of this section do not apply.
(f) “Due diligence,” for the purposes of this section means that
the trustee researched the written claims submitted or other evidence
of conflicts and determined that a conflict of priorities exists
between two or more claimants which the trustee is unable to resolve.
(g) To the extent required by the Unclaimed Property Law, a
trustee in possession of surplus proceeds not required to be
deposited with the court pursuant to subdivision (b) shall comply
with the Unclaimed Property Law (Chapter 7 (commencing with Section
1500) of Title 10 of Part 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure).
(h) The trustee, beneficiary, or counsel to the trustee or
beneficiary, is not liable for providing to any person who is
entitled to notice pursuant to this section, information set forth
in, or a copy of, subdivision (h) of Section 2945.3.

Trustee’s Sale – Distribution of Proceeds; Charges for Costs and Expenses
2924k. (a) The trustee, or the clerk of the court upon order to the
clerk pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 2924j, shall distribute
the proceeds, or a portion of the proceeds, as the case may be, of
the trustee’s sale conducted pursuant to Section 2924h in the
following order of priority:
(1) To the costs and expenses of exercising the power of sale and
of sale, including the payment of the trustee’s fees and attorney’s
fees permitted pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 2924d and
subdivision (b) of this section.
(2) To the payment of the obligations secured by the deed of trust
or mortgage which is the subject of the trustee’s sale.
(3) To satisfy the outstanding balance of obligations secured by
any junior liens or encumbrances in the order of their priority.
(4) To the trustor or the trustor’s successor in interest. In the
event the property is sold or transferred to another, to the vested
owner of record at the time of the trustee’s sale.
(b) A trustee may charge costs and expenses incurred for such
items as mailing and a reasonable fee for services rendered in
connection with the distribution of the proceeds from a trustee’s
sale, including, but not limited to, the investigation of priority
and validity of claims and the disbursement of funds. If the fee
charged for services rendered pursuant to this subdivision does not
exceed one hundred dollars ($100), or one hundred twenty-five dollars
($125) where there are obligations specified in paragraph (3) of
subdivision (a), the fee is conclusively presumed to be reasonable.

Filing Declaration of Nonmonetary Status by Trustee; 15 Day Objection Period
2924l. (a) In the event that a trustee under a deed of trust is
named in an action or proceeding in which that deed of trust is the
subject, and in the event that the trustee maintains a reasonable
belief that it has been named in the action or proceeding solely in
its capacity as trustee, and not arising out of any wrongful acts or
omissions on its part in the performance of its duties as trustee,
then, at any time, the trustee may file a declaration of nonmonetary
status. The declaration shall be served on the parties in the manner
set forth in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 1010) of Title 14 of
the Code of Civil Procedure.
(b) The declaration of nonmonetary status shall set forth the
status of the trustee as trustee under the deed of trust that is the
subject of the action or proceeding, that the trustee knows or
maintains a reasonable belief that it has been named as a defendant
in the proceeding solely in its capacity as a trustee under the deed
of trust, its reasonable belief that it has not been named as a
defendant due to any acts or omissions on its part in the performance
of its duties as trustee, the basis for that knowledge or reasonable
belief, and that it agrees to be bound by whatever order or judgment
is issued by the court regarding the subject deed of trust.
(c) The parties who have appeared in the action or proceeding
shall have 15 days from the service of the declaration by the trustee
in which to object to the nonmonetary judgment status of the
trustee. Any objection shall set forth the factual basis on which the
objection is based and shall be served on the trustee.
(d) In the event that no objection is served within the 15-day
objection period, the trustee shall not be required to participate
any further in the action or proceeding, shall not be subject to any
monetary awards as and for damages, attorneys’ fees or costs, shall
be required to respond to any discovery requests as a nonparty, and
shall be bound by any court order relating to the subject deed of
trust that is the subject of the action or proceeding.
(e) In the event of a timely objection to the declaration of
nonmonetary status, the trustee shall thereafter be required to
participate in the action or proceeding.
Additionally, in the event that the parties elect not to, or fail
to, timely object to the declaration of nonmonetary status, but later
through discovery, or otherwise, determine that the trustee should
participate in the action because of the performance of its duties as
a trustee, the parties may file and serve on all parties and the
trustee a motion pursuant to Section 473 of the Code of Civil
Procedure that specifies the factual basis for the demand. Upon the
court’s granting of the motion, the trustee shall thereafter be
required to participate in the action or proceeding, and the court
shall provide sufficient time prior to trial for the trustee to be
able to respond to the complaint, to conduct discovery, and to bring
other pretrial motions in accordance with the Code of Civil
Procedure.
(f) Upon the filing of the declaration of nonmonetary status, the
time within which the trustee is required to file an answer or other
responsive pleading shall be tolled for the period of time within
which the opposing parties may respond to the declaration. Upon the
timely service of an objection to the declaration on nonmonetary
status, the trustee shall have 30 days from the date of service
within which to file an answer or other responsive pleading to the
complaint or cross-complaint.
(g) For purposes of this section, “trustee” includes any agent or
employee of the trustee who performs some or all of the duties of a
trustee under this article, and includes substituted trustees and
agents of the beneficiary or trustee.

Absolute Deed as Mortgage
2925. The fact that a transfer was made subject to defeasance on a
condition, may, for the purpose of showing such transfer to be a
mortgage, be proved (except as against a subsequent purchaser or
incumbrancer for value and without notice), though the fact does not
appear by the terms of the instrument.

Lien of Mortgage; Extent
2926. A mortgage is a lien upon everything that would pass by a
grant of the property.

Possession Remains in Mortgagor
2927. A mortgage does not entitle the mortgagee to the possession
of the property, unless authorized by the express terms of the
mortgage; but after the execution of the mortgage the mortgagor may
agree to such change of possession without a new consideration.

Personal Liability of Mortgagor
2928. A mortgage does not bind the mortgagor personally to perform
the act for the performance of which it is a security, unless there
is an express covenant therein to that effect.

Impairment of Security
2929. No person whose interest is subject to the lien of a mortgage
may do any act which will substantially impair the mortgagee’s
security.

Duty to Maintain Vacant Residential Property; Fines
2929.3. (a) (1) A legal owner shall maintain vacant residential
property purchased by that owner at a foreclosure sale, or acquired
by that owner through foreclosure under a mortgage or deed of trust.
A governmental entity may impose a civil fine of up to one thousand
dollars ($1,000) per day for a violation. If the governmental entity
chooses to impose a fine pursuant to this section, it shall give
notice of the alleged violation, including a description of the
conditions that gave rise to the allegation, and notice of the entity’
s intent to assess a civil fine if action to correct the violation is
not commenced within a period of not less than 14 days and completed
within a period of not less than 30 days. The notice shall be mailed
to the address provided in the deed or other instrument as specified
in subdivision (a) of Section 27321.5 of the Government Code, or, if
none, to the return address provided on the deed or other
instrument.
(2) The governmental entity shall provide a period of not less
than 30 days for the legal owner to remedy the violation prior to
imposing a civil fine and shall allow for a hearing and opportunity
to contest any fine imposed. In determining the amount of the fine,
the governmental entity shall take into consideration any timely and
good faith efforts by the legal owner to remedy the violation. The
maximum civil fine authorized by this section is one thousand dollars
($1,000) for each day that the owner fails to maintain the property,
commencing on the day following the expiration of the period to
remedy the violation established by the governmental entity.
(3) Subject to the provisions of this section, a governmental
entity may establish different compliance periods for different
conditions on the same property in the notice of alleged violation
mailed to the legal owner.
(b) For purposes of this section, “failure to maintain” means
failure to care for the exterior of the property, including, but not
limited to, permitting excessive foliage growth that diminishes the
value of surrounding properties, failing to take action to prevent
trespassers or squatters from remaining on the property, or failing
to take action to prevent mosquito larvae from growing in standing
water or other conditions that create a public nuisance.
(c) Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) and (b), a governmental
entity may provide less than 30 days’ notice to remedy a condition
before imposing a civil fine if the entity determines that a specific
condition of the property threatens public health or safety and
provided that notice of that determination and time for compliance is
given.
(d) Fines and penalties collected pursuant to this section shall
be directed to local nuisance abatement programs.
(e) A governmental entity may not impose fines on a legal owner
under both this section and a local ordinance.
(f) These provisions shall not preempt any local ordinance.
(g) This section shall only apply to residential real property.
(h) The rights and remedies provided in this section are
cumulative and in addition to any other rights and remedies provided
by law.
(i) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,
2013, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted
statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2013, deletes or extends
that date.

Permission to Inspect for Hazardous Substance
2929.5. (a) A secured lender may enter and inspect the real
property security for the purpose of determining the existence,
location, nature, and magnitude of any past or present release or
threatened release of any hazardous substance into, onto, beneath, or
from the real property security on either of the following:
(1) Upon reasonable belief of the existence of a past or present
release or threatened release of any hazardous substance into, onto,
beneath, or from the real property security not previously disclosed
in writing to the secured lender in conjunction with the making,
renewal, or modification of a loan, extension of credit, guaranty, or
other obligation involving the borrower.
(2) After the commencement of nonjudicial or judicial foreclosure
proceedings against the real property security.
(b) The secured lender shall not abuse the right of entry and
inspection or use it to harass the borrower or tenant of the
property. Except in case of an emergency, when the borrower or tenant
of the property has abandoned the premises, or if it is
impracticable to do so, the secured lender shall give the borrower or
tenant of the property reasonable notice of the secured lender’s
intent to enter, and enter only during the borrower’s or tenant’s
normal business hours. Twenty-four hours’ notice shall be presumed to
be reasonable notice in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
(c) The secured lender shall reimburse the borrower for the cost
of repair of any physical injury to the real property security caused
by the entry and inspection.
(d) If a secured lender is refused the right of entry and
inspection by the borrower or tenant of the property, or is otherwise
unable to enter and inspect the property without a breach of the
peace, the secured lender may, upon petition, obtain an order from a
court of competent jurisdiction to exercise the secured lender’s
rights under subdivision (a), and that action shall not constitute an
action within the meaning of subdivision (a) of Section 726 of the
Code of Civil Procedure.
(e) For purposes of this section:
(1) “Borrower” means the trustor under a deed of trust, or a
mortgagor under a mortgage, where the deed of trust or mortgage
encumbers real property security and secures the performance of the
trustor or mortgagor under a loan, extension of credit, guaranty, or
other obligation. The term includes any successor-in-interest of the
trustor or mortgagor to the real property security before the deed of
trust or mortgage has been discharged, reconveyed, or foreclosed
upon.
(2) “Hazardous substance” includes all of the following:
(A) Any “hazardous substance” as defined in subdivision (h) of
Section 25281 of the Health and Safety Code.
(B) Any “waste” as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 13050 of
the Water Code.
(C) Petroleum, including crude oil or any fraction thereof,
natural gas, natural gas liquids, liquefied natural gas, or synthetic
gas usable for fuel, or any mixture thereof.
(3) “Real property security” means any real property and
improvements, other than a separate interest and any related interest
in the common area of a residential common interest development, as
the terms “separate interest,” “common area,” and “common interest
development” are defined in Section 1351, or real property consisting
of one acre or less which contains 1 to 15 dwelling units.
(4) “Release” means any spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring,
emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, escaping, leaching,
dumping, or disposing into the environment, including continuing
migration, of hazardous substances into, onto, or through soil,
surface water, or groundwater.
(5) “Secured lender” means the beneficiary under a deed of trust
against the real property security, or the mortgagee under a mortgage
against the real property security, and any successor-in-interest of
the beneficiary or mortgagee to the deed of trust or mortgage.

After-Acquired Title
[2930.] Section Twenty-nine Hundred and Thirty. Title acquired by
the mortgagor subsequent to the execution of the mortgage, inures to
the mortgagee as security for the debt in like manner as if acquired
before the execution.

Foreclosure — Code of Civil Procedure Governs
2931. A mortgagee may foreclose the right of redemption of the
mortgagor in the manner prescribed by the CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.

State of California may be Made a Party to Case
2931a. In any action brought to determine conflicting claims to
real property, or for partition of real property or an estate for
years therein, or to foreclose a deed of trust, mortgage, or other
lien upon real property, or in all eminent domain proceedings under
Section 1250.110 et seq., of the Code of Civil Procedure against real
property upon which exists a lien to secure the payment of taxes or
other obligations to an agency of the State of California, other than
ad valorem taxes upon the real property, the state agency charged
with the collection of the tax obligation may be made a party. In
such an action, the court shall have jurisdiction to determine the
priority and effect of the liens described in the complaint in or
upon the real property or estate for years therein, but the
jurisdiction of the court in the action shall not include a
determination of the validity of the tax giving rise to the lien or
claim of lien. The complaint or petition in the action shall contain
a description of the lien sufficient to enable the tax or other
obligation, payment of which it secures, to be identified with
certainty, and shall include the name and address of the person owing
the tax or other obligation, the name of the state agency that
recorded the lien, and the date and place where the lien was
recorded. Services of process in the action shall be made upon the
agency, officer, board, commission, department, division, or other
body charged with the collection of the tax or obligation. It shall
be the duty of the Attorney General to represent the state agency in
the action.

State may Bid on Properrty
2931b. In all actions in which the State of California is named a
party pursuant to the provisions of Section 2931a and in which real
property or an estate for years therein is sought to be sold, the
Attorney General may, with the consent of the Department of Finance,
bid upon and purchase that real property or estate for years.

Actions to Foreclose Tax Liens
2931c. The Attorney General may bring an action in the courts of
this or any other state or of the United States to enforce any lien
to secure the payment of taxes or other obligations to the State of
California under the Unemployment Insurance Code, the Revenue and
Taxation Code, or Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 16180) of Part 1
of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code or to subject to
payment of the liability giving rise to the lien any property in
which the debtor has any right, title, or interest. In any action
brought under this section the court shall have jurisdiction to
determine the priority and effect of the lien in or upon the
property, but the jurisdiction of the court in such action shall not
extend to a determination of the validity of the liability giving
rise to the lien.

Power of Sale in Mortgage
2932. A power of sale may be conferred by a mortgage upon the
mortgagee or any other person, to be exercised after a breach of the
obligation for which the mortgage is a security.

Power of Sale under Assigned Mortgage
2932.5. Where a power to sell real property is given to a
mortgagee, or other encumbrancer, in an instrument intended to secure
the payment of money, the power is part of the security and vests in
any person who by assignment becomes entitled to payment of the
money secured by the instrument. The power of sale may be exercised
by the assignee if the assignment is duly acknowledged and recorded.

Financial Institutions — Repair of Property After Foreclosure
2932.6. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a financial
institution may undertake to repair any property acquired through
foreclosure under a mortgage or deed of trust.
(b) As used in this section, the term “financial institution”
includes, but is not limited to, banks, savings associations, credit
unions, and industrial loan companies.
(c) The rights granted to a financial institution by this section
are in addition to, and not in derogation of, the rights of a
financial institution which otherwise exist.

Power of Attorney to Execute Mortgage
2933. A power of attorney to execute a mortgage must be in writing,
subscribed, acknowledged, or proved, certified, and recorded in like
manner as powers of attorney for grants of real property.

Record of Assignment of Mortgage
2934. Any assignment of a mortgage and any assignment of the
beneficial interest under a deed of trust may be recorded, and from
the time the same is filed for record operates as constructive notice
of the contents thereof to all persons; and any instrument by which
any mortgage or deed of trust of, lien upon or interest in real
property, (or by which any mortgage of, lien upon or interest in
personal property a document evidencing or creating which is required
or permitted by law to be recorded), is subordinated or waived as to
priority may be recorded, and from the time the same is filed for
record operates as constructive notice of the contents thereof, to
all persons.

Substitution of Trustees in Trust Deeds
2934a. (a) (1) The trustee under a trust deed upon real property or
an estate for years therein given to secure an obligation to pay
money and conferring no other duties upon the trustee than those
which are incidental to the exercise of the power of sale therein
conferred, may be substituted by the recording in the county in which
the property is located of a substitution executed and acknowledged
by: (A) all of the beneficiaries under the trust deed, or their
successors in interest, and the substitution shall be effective
notwithstanding any contrary provision in any trust deed executed on
or after January 1, 1968; or (B) the holders of more than 50 percent
of the record beneficial interest of a series of notes secured by the
same real property or of undivided interests in a note secured by
real property equivalent to a series transaction, exclusive of any
notes or interests of a licensed real estate broker that is the
issuer or servicer of the notes or interests or of any affiliate of
that licensed real estate broker.
(2) A substitution executed pursuant to subparagraph (B) of
paragraph (1) is not effective unless all the parties signing the
substitution sign, under penalty of perjury, a separate written
document stating the following:
(A) The substitution has been signed pursuant to subparagraph (B)
of paragraph (1).
(B) None of the undersigned is a licensed real estate broker or an
affiliate of the broker that is the issuer or servicer of the
obligation secured by the deed of trust.
(C) The undersigned together hold more than 50 percent of the
record beneficial interest of a series of notes secured by the same
real property or of undivided interests in a note secured by real
property equivalent to a series transaction.
(D) Notice of the substitution was sent by certified mail, postage
prepaid, with return receipt requested to each holder of an interest
in the obligation secured by the deed of trust who has not joined in
the execution of the substitution or the separate document.
The separate document shall be attached to the substitution and be
recorded in the office of the county recorder of each county in
which the real property described in the deed of trust is located.
Once the document required by this paragraph is recorded, it shall
constitute conclusive evidence of compliance with the requirements of
this paragraph in favor of substituted trustees acting pursuant to
this section, subsequent assignees of the obligation secured by the
deed of trust, and subsequent bona fide purchasers or encumbrancers
for value of the real property described therein.
(3) For purposes of this section, “affiliate of the licensed real
estate broker” includes any person as defined in Section 25013 of the
Corporations Code that is controlled by, or is under common control
with, or who controls, a licensed real estate broker. “Control” means
the possession, direct or indirect, of the power to direct or cause
the direction of management and policies.
(4) The substitution shall contain the date of recordation of the
trust deed, the name of the trustor, the book and page or instrument
number where the trust deed is recorded, and the name of the new
trustee. From the time the substitution is filed for record, the new
trustee shall succeed to all the powers, duties, authority, and title
granted and delegated to the trustee named in the deed of trust. A
substitution may be accomplished, with respect to multiple deeds of
trust which are recorded in the same county in which the substitution
is being recorded and which all have the same trustee and
beneficiary or beneficiaries, by recording a single document,
complying with the requirements of this section, substituting
trustees for all those deeds of trust.
(b) If the substitution is effected after a notice of default has
been recorded but prior to the recording of the notice of sale, the
beneficiary or beneficiaries shall cause a copy of the substitution
to be mailed, prior to the recording thereof, in the manner provided
in Section 2924b, to the trustee then of record and to all persons to
whom a copy of the notice of default would be required to be mailed
by the provisions of Section 2924b. An affidavit shall be attached to
the substitution that notice has been given to those persons and in
the manner required by this subdivision.
(c) Notwithstanding any provision of this section or any provision
in any deed of trust, unless a new notice of sale containing the
name, street address, and telephone number of the substituted trustee
is given pursuant to Section 2924f, any sale conducted by the
substituted trustee shall be void.
(d) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,
1998, and shall have no force or effect after that date, unless a
later enacted statute, which is enacted before January 1, 1998,
deletes or extends that date.

Substitution of Trustees
2934a. (a) (1) The trustee under a trust deed upon real property or
an estate for years therein given to secure an obligation to pay
money and conferring no other duties upon the trustee than those
which are incidental to the exercise of the power of sale therein
conferred, may be substituted by the recording in the county in which
the property is located of a substitution executed and acknowledged
by: (A) all of the beneficiaries under the trust deed, or their
successors in interest, and the substitution shall be effective
notwithstanding any contrary provision in any trust deed executed on
or after January 1, 1968; or (B) the holders of more than 50 percent
of the record beneficial interest of a series of notes secured by the
same real property or of undivided interests in a note secured by
real property equivalent to a series transaction, exclusive of any
notes or interests of a licensed real estate broker that is the
issuer or servicer of the notes or interests or of any affiliate of
that licensed real estate broker.
(2) A substitution executed pursuant to subparagraph (B) of
paragraph (1) is not effective unless all the parties signing the
substitution sign, under penalty of perjury, a separate written
document stating the following:
(A) The substitution has been signed pursuant to subparagraph (B)
of paragraph (1).
(B) None of the undersigned is a licensed real estate broker or an
affiliate of the broker that is the issuer or servicer of the
obligation secured by the deed of trust.
(C) The undersigned together hold more than 50 percent of the
record beneficial interest of a series of notes secured by the same
real property or of undivided interests in a note secured by real
property equivalent to a series transaction.
(D) Notice of the substitution was sent by certified mail, postage
prepaid, with return receipt requested to each holder of an interest
in the obligation secured by the deed of trust who has not joined in
the execution of the substitution or the separate document.
The separate document shall be attached to the substitution and be
recorded in the office of the county recorder of each county in
which the real property described in the deed of trust is located.
Once the document required by this paragraph is recorded, it shall
constitute conclusive evidence of compliance with the requirements of
this paragraph in favor of substituted trustees acting pursuant to
this section, subsequent assignees of the obligation secured by the
deed of trust and subsequent bona fide purchasers or encumbrancers
for value of the real property described therein.
(3) For purposes of this section, “affiliate of the licensed real
estate broker” includes any person as defined in Section 25013 of the
Corporations Code that is controlled by, or is under common control
with, or who controls, a licensed real estate broker. “Control” means
the possession, direct or indirect, of the power to direct or cause
the direction of management and policies.
(4) The substitution shall contain the date of recordation of the
trust deed, the name of the trustor, the book and page or instrument
number where the trust deed is recorded, and the name of the new
trustee. From the time the substitution is filed for record, the new
trustee shall succeed to all the powers, duties, authority, and title
granted and delegated to the trustee named in the deed of trust. A
substitution may be accomplished, with respect to multiple deeds of
trust which are recorded in the same county in which the substitution
is being recorded and which all have the same trustee and
beneficiary or beneficiaries, by recording a single document,
complying with the requirements of this section, substituting
trustees for all those deeds of trust.
(b) If the substitution is executed, but not recorded, prior to or
concurrently with the recording of the notice of default, the
beneficiary or beneficiaries or their authorized agents shall cause
notice of the substitution to be mailed prior to or concurrently with
the recording thereof, in the manner provided in Section 2924b, to
all persons to whom a copy of the notice of default would be required
to be mailed by the provisions of Section 2924b. An affidavit shall
be attached to the substitution that notice has been given to those
persons and in the manner required by this subdivision.
(c) If the substitution is effected after a notice of default has
been recorded but prior to the recording of the notice of sale, the
beneficiary or beneficiaries or their authorized agents shall cause a
copy of the substitution to be mailed, prior to, or concurrently
with, the recording thereof, in the manner provided in Section 2924b,
to the trustee then of record and to all persons to whom a copy of
the notice of default would be required to be mailed by the
provisions of Section 2924b. An affidavit shall be attached to the
substitution that notice has been given to those persons and in the
manner required by this subdivision.
(d) A trustee named in a recorded substitution of trustee shall be
deemed to be authorized to act as the trustee under the mortgage or
deed of trust for all purposes from the date the substitution is
executed by the mortgagee, beneficiaries, or by their authorized
agents. Nothing herein requires that a trustee under a recorded
substitution accept the substitution. Once recorded, the substitution
shall constitute conclusive evidence of the authority of the
substituted trustee or his or her agents to act pursuant to this
section.
(e) Notwithstanding any provision of this section or any provision
in any deed of trust, unless a new notice of sale containing the
name, street address, and telephone number of the substituted trustee
is given pursuant to Section 2924f after execution of the
substitution, any sale conducted by the substituted trustee shall be
void.
(f) This section shall become operative on January 1, 1998.

Vacation of Office of Trustee under Deed of Trust
2934b. Sections 15643 and 18102 of the Probate Code apply to
trustees under deeds of trust given to secure obligations.

Execution of Security Not Notice to Debtor
2935. When a mortgage or deed of trust is executed as security for
money due or to become due, on a promissory note, bond, or other
instrument, designated in the mortgage or deed of trust, the record
of the assignment of the mortgage or of the assignment of the
beneficial interest under the deed of trust, is not of itself notice
to the debtor, his heirs, or personal representatives, so as to
invalidate any payment made by them, or any of them, to the person
holding such note, bond, or other instrument.

Assignment of Debt Carries Security
2936. The assignment of a debt secured by mortgage carries with it
the security.

Transfer of Servicing of Debt Secured by Real Property Mortgage
2937. (a) The Legislature hereby finds and declares that borrowers
or subsequent obligors have the right to know when a person holding a
promissory note, bond, or other instrument transfers servicing of
the indebtedness secured by a mortgage or deed of trust on real
property containing one to four residential units located in this
state. The Legislature also finds that notification to the borrower
or subsequent obligor of the transfer may protect the borrower or
subsequent obligor from fraudulent business practices and may ensure
timely payments.
It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this section to
mandate that a borrower or subsequent obligor be given written notice
when a person transfers the servicing of the indebtedness on notes,
bonds, or other instruments secured by a mortgage or deed of trust on
real property containing one to four residential units and located
in this state.
(b) Any person transferring the servicing of indebtedness as
provided in subdivision (a) to a different servicing agent and any
person assuming from another responsibility for servicing the
instrument evidencing indebtedness, shall give written notice to the
borrower or subsequent obligor before the borrower or subsequent
obligor becomes obligated to make payments to a new servicing agent.
(c) In the event a notice of default has been recorded or a
judicial foreclosure proceeding has been commenced, the person
transferring the servicing of the indebtedness and the person
assuming from another the duty of servicing the indebtedness shall
give written notice to the trustee or attorney named in the notice of
default or judicial foreclosure of the transfer. A notice of
default, notice of sale, or judicial foreclosure shall not be
invalidated solely because the servicing agent is changed during the
foreclosure process.
(d) Any person transferring the servicing of indebtedness as
provided in subdivision (a) to a different servicing agent shall
provide to the new servicing agent all existing insurance policy
information that the person is responsible for maintaining,
including, but not limited to, flood and hazard insurance policy
information.
(e) The notices required by subdivision (b) shall be sent by
first-class mail, postage prepaid, to the borrower’s or subsequent
obligor’s address designated for loan payment billings, or if escrow
is pending, as provided in the escrow, and shall contain each of the
following:
(1) The name and address of the person to which the transfer of
the servicing of the indebtedness is made.
(2) The date the transfer was or will be completed.
(3) The address where all payments pursuant to the transfer are to
be made.
(f) Any person assuming from another responsibility for servicing
the instrument evidencing indebtedness shall include in the notice
required by subdivision (b) a statement of the due date of the next
payment.
(g) The borrower or subsequent obligor shall not be liable to the
holder of the note, bond, or other instrument or to any servicing
agent for payments made to the previous servicing agent or for late
charges if these payments were made prior to the borrower or
subsequent obligor receiving written notice of the transfer as
provided by subdivision (e) and the payments were otherwise on time.
(h) For purposes of this section, the term servicing agent shall
not include a trustee exercising a power of sale pursuant to a deed
of trust.

Service of Process on Trustee — Effect on Transfer of Beneficiary
2937.7. In any action affecting the interest of any trustor or
beneficiary under a deed of trust or mortgage, service of process to
the trustee does not constitute service to the trustor or beneficiary
and does not impose any obligation on the trustee to notify the
trustor or beneficiary of the action.

Effect of Assignment of Interest in Leases, Rents, Issues or Profits — Recordation —
Alternative Methods of Enforcement
2938. (a) A written assignment of an interest in leases, rents,
issues, or profits of real property made in connection with an
obligation secured by real property, irrespective of whether the
assignment is denoted as absolute, absolute conditioned upon default,
additional security for an obligation, or otherwise, shall, upon
execution and delivery by the assignor, be effective to create a
present security interest in existing and future leases, rents,
issues, or profits of that real property. As used in this section,
“leases, rents, issues, and profits of real property” includes the
cash proceeds thereof. “Cash proceeds” means cash, checks, deposit
accounts, and the like.
(b) An assignment of an interest in leases, rents, issues, or
profits of real property may be recorded in the records of the county
recorder in the county in which the underlying real property is
located in the same manner as any other conveyance of an interest in
real property, whether the assignment is in a separate document or
part of a mortgage or deed of trust, and when so duly recorded in
accordance with the methods, procedures, and requirements for
recordation of conveyances of other interests in real property, (1)
the assignment shall be deemed to give constructive notice of the
content of the assignment with the same force and effect as any other
duly recorded conveyance of an interest in real property and (2) the
interest granted by the assignment shall be deemed fully perfected
as of the time of recordation with the same force and effect as any
other duly recorded conveyance of an interest in real property,
notwithstanding a provision of the assignment or a provision of law
that would otherwise preclude or defer enforcement of the rights
granted the assignee under the assignment until the occurrence of a
subsequent event, including, but not limited to, a subsequent default
of the assignor, or the assignee’s obtaining possession of the real
property or the appointment of a receiver.
(c) Upon default of the assignor under the obligation secured by
the assignment of leases, rents, issues, and profits, the assignee
shall be entitled to enforce the assignment in accordance with this
section. On and after the date the assignee takes one or more of the
enforcement steps described in this subdivision, the assignee shall
be entitled to collect and receive all rents, issues, and profits
that have accrued but remain unpaid and uncollected by the assignor
or its agent or for the assignor’s benefit on that date, and all
rents, issues, and profits that accrue on or after the date. The
assignment shall be enforced by one or more of the following:
(1) The appointment of a receiver.
(2) Obtaining possession of the rents, issues, or profits.
(3) Delivery to any one or more of the tenants of a written demand
for turnover of rents, issues, and profits in the form specified in
subdivision (k), a copy of which demand shall also be delivered to
the assignor; and a copy of which shall be mailed to all other
assignees of record of the leases, rents, issues, and profits of the
real property at the address for notices provided in the assignment
or, if none, to the address to which the recorded assignment was to
be mailed after recording.
(4) Delivery to the assignor of a written demand for the rents,
issues, or profits, a copy of which shall be mailed to all other
assignees of record of the leases, rents, issues, and profits of the
real property at the address for notices provided in the assignment
or, if none, to the address to which the recorded assignment was to
be mailed after recording.
Moneys received by the assignee pursuant to this subdivision, net
of amounts paid pursuant to subdivision (g), if any, shall be applied
by the assignee to the debt or otherwise in accordance with the
assignment or the promissory note, deed of trust, or other instrument
evidencing the obligation, provided, however, that neither the
application nor the failure to so apply the rents, issues, or profits
shall result in a loss of any lien or security interest that the
assignee may have in the underlying real property or any other
collateral, render the obligation unenforceable, constitute a
violation of Section 726 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or otherwise
limit a right available to the assignee with respect to its
security.
(d) If an assignee elects to take the action provided for under
paragraph (3) of subdivision (c), the demand provided for therein
shall be signed under penalty of perjury by the assignee or an
authorized agent of the assignee and shall be effective as against
the tenant when actually received by the tenant at the address for
notices provided under the lease or other contractual agreement under
which the tenant occupies the property or, if no address for notices
is so provided, at the property. Upon receipt of this demand, the
tenant shall be obligated to pay to the assignee all rents, issues,
and profits that are past due and payable on the date of receipt of
the demand, and all rents, issues, and profits coming due under the
lease following the date of receipt of the demand, unless either of
the following occurs:
(1) The tenant has previously received a demand that is valid on
its face from another assignee of the leases, issues, rents, and
profits sent by the other assignee in accordance with this
subdivision and subdivision (c).
(2) The tenant, in good faith and in a manner that is not
inconsistent with the lease, has previously paid, or within 10 days
following receipt of the demand notice pays, the rent to the
assignor.
Payment of rent to an assignee following a demand under an
assignment of leases, rents, issues, and profits shall satisfy the
tenant’s obligation to pay the amounts under the lease. If a tenant
pays rent to the assignor after receipt of a demand other than under
the circumstances described in this subdivision, the tenant shall not
be discharged of the obligation to pay rent to the assignee, unless
the tenant occupies the property for residential purposes. The
obligation of a tenant to pay rent pursuant to this subdivision and
subdivision (c) shall continue until receipt by the tenant of a
written notice from a court directing the tenant to pay the rent in a
different manner or receipt by the tenant of a written notice from
the assignee from whom the demand was received canceling the demand,
whichever occurs first. This subdivision does not affect the
entitlement to rents, issues, or profits as between assignees as set
forth in subdivision (h).
(e) An enforcement action of the type authorized by subdivision
(c), and a collection, distribution, or application of rents, issues,
or profits by the assignee following an enforcement action of the
type authorized by subdivision (c), shall not do any of the
following:
(1) Make the assignee a mortgagee in possession of the property,
except if the assignee obtains actual possession of the real
property, or an agent of the assignor.
(2) Constitute an action, render the obligation unenforceable,
violate Section 726 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or, other than
with respect to marshaling requirements, otherwise limit any rights
available to the assignee with respect to its security.
(3) Be deemed to create a bar to a deficiency judgment pursuant to
a provision of law governing or relating to deficiency judgments
following the enforcement of any encumbrance, lien, or security
interest, notwithstanding that the action, collection, distribution,
or application may reduce the indebtedness secured by the assignment
or by a deed of trust or other security instrument.
The application of rents, issues, or profits to the secured
obligation shall satisfy the secured obligation to the extent of
those rents, issues, or profits, and, notwithstanding any provisions
of the assignment or other loan documents to the contrary, shall be
credited against any amounts necessary to cure any monetary default
for purposes of reinstatement under Section 2924c.
(f) If cash proceeds of rents, issues, or profits to which the
assignee is entitled following enforcement as set forth in
subdivision (c) are received by the assignor or its agent for
collection or by another person who has collected such rents, issues,
or profits for the assignor’s benefit, or for the benefit of a
subsequent assignee under the circumstances described in subdivision
(h), following the taking by the assignee of either of the
enforcement actions authorized in paragraph (3) or (4) of subdivision
(c), and the assignee has not authorized the assignor’s disposition
of the cash proceeds in a writing signed by the assignee, the rights
to the cash proceeds and to the recovery of the cash proceeds shall
be determined by the following:
(1) The assignee shall be entitled to an immediate turnover of the
cash proceeds received by the assignor or its agent for collection
or any other person who has collected the rents, issues, or profits
for the assignor’s benefit, or for the benefit of a subsequent
assignee under the circumstances described in subdivision (h), and
the assignor or other described party in possession of those cash
proceeds shall turn over the full amount of cash proceeds to the
assignee, less any amount representing payment of expenses authorized
by the assignee in writing. The assignee shall have a right to bring
an action for recovery of the cash proceeds, and to recover the cash
proceeds, without the necessity of bringing an action to foreclose a
security interest that it may have in the real property. This action
shall not violate Section 726 of the Code of Civil Procedure or
otherwise limit a right available to the assignee with respect to its
security.
(2) As between an assignee with an interest in cash proceeds
perfected in the manner set forth in subdivision (b) and enforced in
accordance with paragraph (3) or (4) of subdivision (c) and another
person claiming an interest in the cash proceeds, other than the
assignor or its agent for collection or one collecting rents, issues,
and profits for the benefit of the assignor, and subject to
subdivision (h), the assignee shall have a continuously perfected
security interest in the cash proceeds to the extent that the cash
proceeds are identifiable. For purposes hereof, cash proceeds are
identifiable if they are either (A) segregated or (B) if commingled
with other funds of the assignor or its agent or one acting on its
behalf, can be traced using the lowest intermediate balance
principle, unless the assignor or other party claiming an interest in
proceeds shows that some other method of tracing would better serve
the interests of justice and equity under the circumstances of the
case. The provisions of this paragraph are subject to any generally
applicable law with respect to payments made in the operation of the
assignor’s business.
(g) (1) If the assignee enforces the assignment under subdivision
(c) by means other than the appointment of a receiver and receives
rents, issues, or profits pursuant to this enforcement, the assignor
or another assignee of the affected real property may make written
demand upon the assignee to pay the reasonable costs of protecting
and preserving the property, including payment of taxes and insurance
and compliance with building and housing codes, if any.
(2) On and after the date of receipt of the demand, the assignee
shall pay for the reasonable costs of protecting and preserving the
real property to the extent of any rents, issues, or profits actually
received by the assignee, provided, however, that no such acts by
the assignee shall cause the assignee to become a mortgagee in
possession and the assignee’s duties under this subdivision, upon
receipt of a demand from the assignor or any other assignee of the
leases, rents, issues, and profits pursuant to paragraph (1), shall
not be construed to require the assignee to operate or manage the
property, which obligation shall remain that of the assignor.
(3) The obligation of the assignee hereunder shall continue until
the earlier of (A) the date on which the assignee obtains the
appointment of a receiver for the real property pursuant to
application to a court of competent jurisdiction, or (B) the date on
which the assignee ceases to enforce the assignment.
(4) This subdivision does not supersede or diminish the right of
the assignee to the appointment of a receiver.
(h) The lien priorities, rights, and interests among creditors
concerning rents, issues, or profits collected before the enforcement
by the assignee shall be governed by subdivisions (a) and (b).
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, if an assignee who
has recorded its interest in leases, rents, issues, and profits prior
to the recordation of that interest by a subsequent assignee seeks
to enforce its interest in those rents, issues, or profits in
accordance with this section after any enforcement action has been
taken by a subsequent assignee, the prior assignee shall be entitled
only to the rents, issues, and profits that are accrued and unpaid as
of the date of its enforcement action and unpaid rents, issues, and
profits accruing thereafter. The prior assignee shall have no right
to rents, issues, or profits paid prior to the date of the
enforcement action, whether in the hands of the assignor or any
subsequent assignee. Upon receipt of notice that the prior assignee
has enforced its interest in the rents, issues, and profits, the
subsequent assignee shall immediately send a notice to any tenant to
whom it has given notice under subdivision (c). The notice shall
inform the tenant that the subsequent assignee cancels its demand
that the tenant pay rent to the subsequent assignee.
(i) (1) This section shall apply to contracts entered into on or
after January 1, 1997.
(2) Sections 2938 and 2938.1, as these sections were in effect
prior to January 1, 1997, shall govern contracts entered into prior
to January 1, 1997, and shall govern actions and proceedings
initiated on the basis of these contracts.
(j) “Real property,” as used in this section, means real property
or any estate or interest therein.
(k) The demand required by paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) shall
be in the following form:
DEMAND TO PAY RENT TO
PARTY OTHER THAN LANDLORD
(SECTION 2938 OF THE CIVIL CODE)
Tenant: [Name of Tenant]

Property Occupied by Tenant: [Address]

Landlord: [Name of Landlord]

Secured Party: [Name of Secured Party]

Address: [Address for Payment of Rent to Secured Party and for
Further Information]:

The secured party named above is the assignee of leases, rents,
issues, and profits under [name of document] dated ______, and
recorded at [recording information] in the official records of
___________ County, California. You may request a copy of the
assignment from the secured party at ____ (address).

THIS NOTICE AFFECTS YOUR LEASE OR RENTAL AGREEMENT RIGHTS AND
OBLIGATIONS. YOU ARE THEREFORE ADVISED TO CONSULT AN ATTORNEY
CONCERNING THOSE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS
REGARDING YOUR RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS UNDER THIS NOTICE.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUBDIVISION (C) OF SECTION 2938 OF THE CIVIL
CODE, YOU ARE HEREBY DIRECTED TO PAY TO THE SECURED PARTY, ____ (NAME
OF SECURED PARTY) AT ____ (ADDRESS), ALL RENTS UNDER YOUR LEASE OR
OTHER RENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE LANDLORD OR PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST
OF LANDLORD, FOR THE OCCUPANCY OF THE PROPERTY AT ____ (ADDRESS OF
RENTAL PREMISES) WHICH ARE PAST DUE AND PAYABLE ON THE DATE YOU
RECEIVE THIS DEMAND, AND ALL RENTS COMING DUE UNDER THE LEASE OR
OTHER RENTAL AGREEMENT FOLLOWING THE DATE YOU RECEIVE THIS DEMAND
UNLESS YOU HAVE ALREADY PAID THIS RENT TO THE LANDLORD IN GOOD FAITH
AND IN A MANNER NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN YOU AND
THE LANDLORD. IN THIS CASE, THIS DEMAND NOTICE SHALL REQUIRE YOU TO
PAY TO THE SECURED PARTY, ____ (NAME OF THE SECURED PARTY), ALL RENTS
THAT COME DUE FOLLOWING THE DATE OF THE PAYMENT TO THE LANDLORD.

IF YOU PAY THE RENT TO THE UNDERSIGNED SECURED PARTY, ____ (NAME
OF SECURED PARTY), IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS NOTICE, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO
PAY THE RENT TO THE LANDLORD. YOU WILL NOT BE SUBJECT TO DAMAGES OR
OBLIGATED TO PAY RENT TO THE SECURED PARTY IF YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY
RECEIVED A DEMAND OF THIS TYPE FROM A DIFFERENT SECURED PARTY.

[For other than residential tenants] IF YOU PAY RENT TO THE
LANDLORD THAT BY THE TERMS OF THIS DEMAND YOU ARE REQUIRED TO PAY TO
THE SECURED PARTY, YOU MAY BE SUBJECT TO DAMAGES INCURRED BY THE
SECURED PARTY BY REASON OF YOUR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS DEMAND,
AND YOU MAY NOT BE DISCHARGED FROM YOUR OBLIGATION TO PAY THAT RENT
TO THE SECURED PARTY. YOU WILL NOT BE SUBJECT TO THOSE DAMAGES OR
OBLIGATED TO PAY THAT RENT TO THE SECURED PARTY IF YOU HAVE
PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED A DEMAND OF THIS TYPE FROM A DIFFERENT ASSIGNEE.

Your obligation to pay rent under this demand shall continue until
you receive either (1) a written notice from a court directing you
to pay the rent in a manner provided therein, or (2) a written notice
from the secured party named above canceling this demand.

The undersigned hereby certifies, under penalty of perjury, that
the undersigned is an authorized officer or agent of the secured
party and that the secured party is the assignee, or the current
successor to the assignee, under an assignment of leases, rents,
issues, or profits executed by the landlord, or a predecessor in
interest, that is being enforced pursuant to and in accordance with
Section 2938 of the Civil Code.

Executed at _________, California, this ____ day of _________,
_____.

(Secured Party)
Name: __________________________
Title: _________________________

Discharge
2939. A recorded mortgage must be discharged by a certificate
signed by the mortgagee, his personal representatives or assigns,
acknowledged or proved and certified as prescribed by the chapter on
“recording transfers,” stating that the mortgage has been paid,
satisfied, or discharged. Reference shall be made in said certificate
to the book and page where the mortgage is recorded.

Discharge by Foreign Executor
2939.5. Foreign executors, administrators and guardians may satisfy
mortgages upon the records of any county in this state, upon
producing and recording in the office of the county recorder of the
county in which such mortgage is recorded, a duly certified and
authenticated copy of their letters testamentary, or of
administration or of guardianship, and which certificate or
authentication shall also recite that said letters have not been
revoked. For the purposes of this section, “guardian” includes a
foreign conservator, committee, or comparable fiduciary.

Discharge Certificate and Record Thereof
2940. A certificate of the discharge of a mortgage, and the proof
or acknowledgment thereof, must be recorded in the office of the
county recorder in which the mortgage is recorded.

Duty of Mortgagee to Execute Certificate of Discharge
2941. (a) Within 30 days after any mortgage has been satisfied, the
mortgagee or the assignee of the mortgagee shall execute a
certificate of the discharge thereof, as provided in Section 2939,
and shall record or cause to be recorded in the office of the county
recorder in which the mortgage is recorded. The mortgagee shall then
deliver, upon the written request of the mortgagor or the mortgagor’s
heirs, successors, or assignees, as the case may be, the original
note and mortgage to the person making the request.
(b) (1) Within 30 calendar days after the obligation secured by
any deed of trust has been satisfied, the beneficiary or the assignee
of the beneficiary shall execute and deliver to the trustee the
original note, deed of trust, request for a full reconveyance, and
other documents as may be necessary to reconvey, or cause to be
reconveyed, the deed of trust.
(A) The trustee shall execute the full reconveyance and shall
record or cause it to be recorded in the office of the county
recorder in which the deed of trust is recorded within 21 calendar
days after receipt by the trustee of the original note, deed of
trust, request for a full reconveyance, the fee that may be charged
pursuant to subdivision (e), recorder’s fees, and other documents as
may be necessary to reconvey, or cause to be reconveyed, the deed of
trust.
(B) The trustee shall deliver a copy of the reconveyance to the
beneficiary, its successor in interest, or its servicing agent, if
known. The reconveyance instrument shall specify one of the following
options for delivery of the instrument, the addresses of which the
recorder has no duty to validate:
(i) The trustor or successor in interest, and that person’s last
known address, as the person to whom the recorder will deliver the
recorded instrument pursuant to Section 27321 of the Government Code.
(ii) That the recorder shall deliver the recorded instrument to
the trustee’s address. If the trustee’s address is specified for
delivery, the trustee shall mail the recorded instrument to the
trustor or the successor in interest to the last known address for
that party.
(C) Following execution and recordation of the full reconveyance,
upon receipt of a written request by the trustor or the trustor’s
heirs, successors, or assignees, the trustee shall then deliver, or
caused to be delivered, the original note and deed of trust to the
person making that request.
(D) If the note or deed of trust, or any copy of the note or deed
of trust, is electronic, upon satisfaction of an obligation secured
by a deed of trust, any electronic original, or electronic copy which
has not been previously marked solely for use as a copy, of the note
and deed of trust, shall be altered to indicate that the obligation
is paid in full.
(2) If the trustee has failed to execute and record, or cause to
be recorded, the full reconveyance within 60 calendar days of
satisfaction of the obligation, the beneficiary, upon receipt of a
written request by the trustor or trustor’s heirs, successor in
interest, agent, or assignee, shall execute and acknowledge a
document pursuant to Section 2934a substituting itself or another as
trustee and issue a full reconveyance.
(3) If a full reconveyance has not been executed and recorded
pursuant to either paragraph (1) or paragraph (2) within 75 calendar
days of satisfaction of the obligation, then a title insurance
company may prepare and record a release of the obligation. However,
at least 10 days prior to the issuance and recording of a full
release pursuant to this paragraph, the title insurance company shall
mail by first-class mail with postage prepaid, the intention to
release the obligation to the trustee, trustor, and beneficiary of
record, or their successor in interest of record, at the last known
address.
(A) The release shall set forth:
(i) The name of the beneficiary.
(ii) The name of the trustor.
(iii) The recording reference to the deed of trust.
(iv) A recital that the obligation secured by the deed of trust
has been paid in full.
(v) The date and amount of payment.
(B) The release issued pursuant to this subdivision shall be
entitled to recordation and, when recorded, shall be deemed to be the
equivalent of a reconveyance of a deed of trust.
(4) Where an obligation secured by a deed of trust was paid in
full prior to July 1, 1989, and no reconveyance has been issued and
recorded by October 1, 1989, then a release of obligation as provided
for in paragraph (3) may be issued.
(5) Paragraphs (2) and (3) do not excuse the beneficiary or the
trustee from compliance with paragraph (1). Paragraph (3) does not
excuse the beneficiary from compliance with paragraph (2).
(6) In addition to any other remedy provided by law, a title
insurance company preparing or recording the release of the
obligation shall be liable to any party for damages, including
attorney’s fees, which any person may sustain by reason of the
issuance and recording of the release, pursuant to paragraphs (3) and
(4).
(7) A beneficiary may, at its discretion, in accordance with the
requirements and procedures of Section 2934a, substitute the title
company conducting the escrow through which the obligation is
satisfied for the trustee of record, in which case the title company
assumes the obligation of a trustee under this subdivision, and may
collect the fee authorized by subdivision (e).
(8) In lieu of delivering the original note and deed of trust to
the trustee within 30 days of loan satisfaction, as required by
paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), a beneficiary who executes and
delivers to the trustee a request for a full reconveyance within 30
days of loan satisfaction may, within 120 days of loan satisfaction,
deliver the original note and deed of trust to either the trustee or
trustor. If the note and deed of trust are delivered as provided in
this paragraph, upon satisfaction of the note and deed of trust, the
note and deed of trust shall be altered to indicate that the
obligation is paid in full. Nothing in this paragraph alters the
requirements and obligations set forth in paragraphs (2) and (3).
(c) For the purposes of this section, the phrases “cause to be
recorded” and “cause it to be recorded” include, but are not limited
to, sending by certified mail with the United States Postal Service
or by an independent courier service using its tracking service that
provides documentation of receipt and delivery, including the
signature of the recipient, the full reconveyance or certificate of
discharge in a recordable form, together with payment for all
required fees, in an envelope addressed to the county recorder’s
office of the county in which the deed of trust or mortgage is
recorded. Within two business days from the day of receipt, if
received in recordable form together with all required fees, the
county recorder shall stamp and record the full reconveyance or
certificate of discharge. Compliance with this subdivision shall
entitle the trustee to the benefit of the presumption found in
Section 641 of the Evidence Code.
(d) The violation of this section shall make the violator liable
to the person affected by the violation for all damages which that
person may sustain by reason of the violation, and shall require that
the violator forfeit to that person the sum of five hundred dollars
($500).
(e) (1) The trustee, beneficiary, or mortgagee may charge a
reasonable fee to the trustor or mortgagor, or the owner of the land,
as the case may be, for all services involved in the preparation,
execution, and recordation of the full reconveyance, including, but
not limited to, document preparation and forwarding services rendered
to effect the full reconveyance, and, in addition, may collect
official fees. This fee may be made payable no earlier than the
opening of a bona fide escrow or no more than 60 days prior to the
full satisfaction of the obligation secured by the deed of trust or
mortgage.
(2) If the fee charged pursuant to this subdivision does not
exceed forty-five dollars ($45), the fee is conclusively presumed to
be reasonable.
(3) The fee described in paragraph (1) may not be charged unless
demand for the fee was included in the payoff demand statement
described in Section 2943.
(f) For purposes of this section, “original” may include an
optically imaged reproduction when the following requirements are
met:
(1) The trustee receiving the request for reconveyance and
executing the reconveyance as provided in subdivision (b) is an
affiliate or subsidiary of the beneficiary or an affiliate or
subsidiary of the assignee of the beneficiary, respectively.
(2) The optical image storage media used to store the document
shall be nonerasable write once, read many (WORM) optical image media
that does not allow changes to the stored document.
(3) The optical image reproduction shall be made consistent with
the minimum standards of quality approved by either the National
Institute of Standards and Technology or the Association for
Information and Image Management.
(4) Written authentication identifying the optical image
reproduction as an unaltered copy of the note, deed of trust, or
mortgage shall be stamped or printed on the optical image
reproduction.
(g) No fee or charge may be imposed on the trustor in connection
with, or relating to, any act described in this section except as
expressly authorized by this section.
(h) The amendments to this section enacted at the 1999-2000
Regular Session shall apply only to a mortgage or an obligation
secured by a deed of trust that is satisfied on or after January 1,
2001.
(i) (1) In any action filed before January 1, 2002, that is
dismissed as a result of the amendments to this section enacted at
the 2001-02 Regular Session, the plaintiff shall not be required to
pay the defendant’s costs.
(2) Any claimant, including a claimant in a class action lawsuit,
whose claim is dismissed or barred as a result of the amendments to
this section enacted at the 2001-02 Regular Session, may, within 6
months of the dismissal or barring of the action or claim, file or
refile a claim for actual damages occurring before January 1, 2002,
that were proximately caused by a time lapse between loan
satisfaction and the completion of the beneficiary’s obligations as
required under paragraph (1) of subdivision (b). In any action
brought under this section, the defendant may be found liable for
actual damages, but may not be found liable for any civil penalty
authorized by Section 2941.
(j) Notwithstanding any other penalties, if a beneficiary collects
a fee for reconveyance and thereafter has knowledge, or should have
knowledge, that no reconveyance has been recorded, the beneficiary
shall cause to be recorded the reconveyance, or in the event a
release of obligation is earlier and timely recorded, the beneficiary
shall refund to the trustor the fee charged to perform the
reconveyance. Evidence of knowledge includes, but is not limited to,
notice of a release of obligation pursuant to paragraph (3) of
subdivision (b).

Reconveyance Fee
2941.1. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if no payoff
demand statement is issued pursuant to Section 2943, nothing in
Section 2941 shall be construed to prohibit the charging of a
reconveyance fee.

Wilful Violation of Sec. 2941 a Misdemeanor
2941.5. Every person who willfully violates Section 2941 is guilty
of a misdemeanor punishable by fine of not less than fifty dollars
($50) nor more than four hundred dollars ($400), or by imprisonment
in the county jail for not to exceed six months, or by both such fine
and imprisonment.
For purposes of this section, “willfully” means simply a purpose
or willingness to commit the act, or make the omission referred to.
It does not require an intent to violate the law, to injure another,
or to acquire any advantage.

Corporate Bond Accompanied by Declaration
2941.7. Whenever the obligation secured by a mortgage or deed of
trust has been fully satisfied and the present mortgagee or
beneficiary of record cannot be located after diligent search, or
refuses to execute and deliver a proper certificate of discharge or
request for reconveyance, or whenever a specified balance, including
principal and interest, remains due and the mortgagor or trustor or
the mortgagor’s or trustor’s successor in interest cannot, after
diligent search, locate the then mortgagee or beneficiary of record,
the lien of any mortgage or deed of trust shall be released when the
mortgagor or trustor or the mortgagor’s or trustor’s successor in
interest records or causes to be recorded, in the office of the
county recorder of the county in which the encumbered property is
located, a corporate bond accompanied by a declaration, as specified
in subdivision (b), and with respect to a deed of trust, a
reconveyance as hereinafter provided.
(a) The bond shall be acceptable to the trustee and shall be
issued by a corporation lawfully authorized to issue surety bonds in
the State of California in a sum equal to the greater of either (1)
two times the amount of the original obligation secured by the
mortgage or deed of trust and any additional principal amounts,
including advances, shown in any recorded amendment thereto, or (2)
one-half of the total amount computed pursuant to (1) and any accrued
interest on such amount, and shall be conditioned for payment of any
sum which the mortgagee or beneficiary may recover in an action on
the obligation secured by the mortgage or deed of trust, with costs
of suit and reasonable attorneys’ fees. The obligees under the bond
shall be the mortgagee or mortgagee’s successor in interest or the
trustee who executes a reconveyance under this section and the
beneficiary or beneficiary’s successor in interest.
The bond recorded by the mortgagor or trustor or mortgagor’s or
trustor’s successor in interest shall contain the following
information describing the mortgage or deed of trust:
(1) Recording date and instrument number or book and page number
of the recorded instrument.
(2) Names of original mortgagor and mortgagee or trustor and
beneficiary.
(3) Amount shown as original principal sum secured thereby.
(4) The recording information and new principal amount shown in
any recorded amendment thereto.
(b) The declaration accompanying the corporate bond recorded by
the mortgagor or trustor or the mortgagor’s or trustor’s successor in
interest shall state:
(1) That it is recorded pursuant to this section.
(2) The name of the original mortgagor or trustor and mortgagee or
beneficiary.
(3) The name and address of the person making the declaration.
(4) That either the obligation secured by the mortgage or deed of
trust has been fully satisfied and the present mortgagee or
beneficiary of record cannot be located after diligent search, or
refuses to execute and deliver a proper certificate of discharge or
request for reconveyance as required under Section 2941; or that a
specified balance, including principal and interest, remains due and
the mortgagor or trustor or mortgagor’s or trustor’s successor in
interest cannot, after diligent search, locate the then mortgagee or
beneficiary.
(5) That the declarant has mailed by certified mail, return
receipt requested, to the last address of the person to whom payments
under the mortgage or deed of trust were made and to the last
mortgagee or beneficiary of record at the address for such mortgagee
or beneficiary shown on the instrument creating, assigning, or
conveying the interest, a notice of recording a declaration and bond
under this section and informing the recipient of the name and
address of the mortgagor or trustee, if any, and of the right to
record a written objection with respect to the release of the lien of
the mortgage or, with respect to a deed of trust, notify the trustee
in writing of any objection to the reconveyance of the deed of
trust. The declaration shall state the date any notices were mailed
pursuant to this section and the names and addresses of all persons
to whom mailed.
The declaration provided for in this section shall be signed by
the mortgagor or trustor under penalty of perjury.
(c) With respect to a deed of trust, after the expiration of 30
days following the recording of the corporate bond and accompanying
declaration provided in subdivisions (a) and (b), and delivery to the
trustee of the usual reconveyance fees plus costs and a demand for
reconveyance under this section, the trustee shall execute and
record, or otherwise deliver as provided in Section 2941, a
reconveyance in the same form as if the beneficiary had delivered to
the trustee a proper request for reconveyance, provided that the
trustee has not received a written objection to the reconveyance from
the beneficiary of record. No trustee shall have any liability to
any person by reason of its execution of a reconveyance in reliance
upon a trustor’s or trustor’s successor’s in interest substantial
compliance with this section. The sole remedy of any person damaged
by reason of the reconveyance shall be against the trustor, the
affiant, or the bond. With respect to a mortgage, a mortgage shall be
satisfied of record when 30 days have expired following recordation
of the corporate bond and accompanying declaration, provided no
objection to satisfaction has been recorded by the mortgagee within
that period. A bona fide purchaser or encumbrancer for value shall
take the interest conveyed free of such mortgage, provided there has
been compliance with subdivisions (a) and (b) and the deed to the
purchaser recites that no objections by the mortgagee have been
recorded.
Upon recording of a reconveyance under this section, or, in the
case of a mortgage the expiration of 30 days following recordation of
the corporate bond and accompanying declaration without objection
thereto having been recorded, interest shall no longer accrue as to
any balance remaining due to the extent the balance due has been
alleged in the declaration recorded under subdivision (b).
The sum of any specified balance, including principal and
interest, which remains due and which is remitted to any issuer of a
corporate bond in conjunction with the issuance of a bond pursuant to
this section shall, if unclaimed, escheat to the state after three
years pursuant to the Unclaimed Property Law. From the date of
escheat the issuer of the bond shall be relieved of any liability to
pay to the beneficiary or his or her heirs or other successors in
interest the escheated funds and the sole remedy shall be a claim for
property paid or delivered to the Controller pursuant to the
Unclaimed Property Law.
(d) The term “diligent search,” as used in this section, shall
mean all of the following:
(1) The mailing of notices as provided in paragraph (5) of
subdivision (b), and to any other address that the declarant has used
to correspond with or contact the mortgagee or beneficiary.
(2) A check of the telephone directory in the city where the
mortgagee or beneficiary maintained the mortgagee’s or beneficiary’s
last known address or place of business.
(3) In the event the mortgagee or beneficiary or the mortgagee’s
or beneficiary’s successor in interest is a corporation, a check of
the records of the California Secretary of State and the secretary of
state in the state of incorporation, if known.
(4) In the event the mortgagee or beneficiary is a state or
national bank or a state or federal savings and loan association, an
inquiry of the regulatory authority of such bank or savings and loan
association.
(e) This section shall not be deemed to create an exclusive
procedure for the issuance of reconveyances and the issuance of bonds
and declarations to release the lien of a mortgage and shall not
affect any other procedures, whether or not such procedures are set
forth in statute, for the issuance of reconveyances and the issuance
of bonds and declarations to release the lien of a mortgage.
(f) For purposes of this section, the trustor or trustor’s
successor in interest may substitute the present trustee of record
without conferring any duties upon the trustee other than those that
are incidental to the execution of a reconveyance pursuant to this
section if all of the following requirements are met:
(1) The present trustee of record and the present mortgagee or
beneficiary of record cannot be located after diligent search.
(2) The declaration filed pursuant to subdivision (b) shall state
in addition that it is filed pursuant to this subdivision, and shall,
in lieu of the provisions of paragraph (4) of subdivision (b), state
that the obligation secured by the mortgage or deed of trust has
been fully satisfied and the present trustee of record and present
mortgagee or beneficiary of record cannot be located after diligent
search.
(3) The substitute trustee is a title insurance company that
agrees to accept the substitution. This subdivision shall not impose
a duty upon a title insurance company to accept the substitution.
(4) The corporate bond required in subdivision (a) is for a period
of five or more years.

Agreement by all Beneficiaries Under Trust Deed to Be Governed by Beneficiaries Holding
More Than 50 Percent of Specified Interests
2941.9. (a) The purpose of this section is to establish a process
through which all of the beneficiaries under a trust deed may agree
to be governed by beneficiaries holding more than 50 percent of the
record beneficial interest of a series of notes secured by the same
real property or of undivided interests in a note secured by real
property equivalent to a series transaction, exclusive of any notes
or interests of a licensed real estate broker that is the issuer or
servicer of the notes or interests or any affiliate of that licensed
real estate broker.
(b) All holders of notes secured by the same real property or a
series of undivided interests in notes secured by real property
equivalent to a series transaction may agree in writing to be
governed by the desires of the holders of more than 50 percent of the
record beneficial interest of those notes or interests, exclusive of
any notes or interests of a licensed real estate broker that is the
issuer or servicer of the notes or interests of any affiliate of the
licensed real estate broker, with respect to actions to be taken on
behalf of all holders in the event of default or foreclosure for
matters that require direction or approval of the holders, including
designation of the broker, servicing agent, or other person acting on
their behalf, and the sale, encumbrance, or lease of real property
owned by the holders resulting from foreclosure or receipt of a deed
in lieu of foreclosure.
(c) A description of the agreement authorized in subdivision (b)
of this section shall be disclosed pursuant to Section 10232.5 of the
Business and Professions Code and shall be included in a recorded
document such as the deed of trust or the assignment of interests.
(d) Any action taken pursuant to the authority granted in this
section is not effective unless all the parties agreeing to the
action sign, under penalty of perjury, a separate written document
entitled “Majority Action Affidavit” stating the following:
(1) The action has been authorized pursuant to this section.
(2) None of the undersigned is a licensed real estate broker or an
affiliate of the broker that is the issuer or servicer of the
obligation secured by the deed of trust.
(3) The undersigned together hold more than 50 percent of the
record beneficial interest of a series of notes secured by the same
real property or of undivided interests in a note secured by real
property equivalent to a series transaction.
(4) Notice of the action was sent by certified mail, postage
prepaid, with return receipt requested, to each holder of an interest
in the obligation secured by the deed of trust who has not joined in
the execution of the substitution or this document.
This document shall be recorded in the office of the county
recorder of each county in which the real property described in the
deed of trust is located. Once the document in this subdivision is
recorded, it shall constitute conclusive evidence of compliance with
the requirements of this subdivision in favor of trustees acting
pursuant to this section, substituted trustees acting pursuant to
Section 2934a, subsequent assignees of the obligation secured by the
deed of trust, and subsequent bona fide purchasers or encumbrancers
for value of the real property described therein.
(e) For purposes of this section, “affiliate of the licensed real
estate broker” includes any person as defined in Section 25013 of the
Corporations Code who is controlled by, or is under common control
with, or who controls, a licensed real estate broker. “Control” means
the possession, direct or indirect, of the power to direct or cause
the direction of management and policies.

Statute Inapplicable to Bottomry
2942. Contracts of bottomry or respondentia, although in the nature
of mortgages, are not affected by any of the provisions of this
Chapter.

Statement of Unpaid Balance on Demand
2943. (a) As used in this section:
(1) “Beneficiary” means a mortgagee or beneficiary of a mortgage
or deed of trust, or his or her assignees.
(2) “Beneficiary statement” means a written statement showing:
(A) The amount of the unpaid balance of the obligation secured by
the mortgage or deed of trust and the interest rate, together with
the total amounts, if any, of all overdue installments of either
principal or interest, or both.
(B) The amounts of periodic payments, if any.
(C) The date on which the obligation is due in whole or in part.
(D) The date to which real estate taxes and special assessments
have been paid to the extent the information is known to the
beneficiary.
(E) The amount of hazard insurance in effect and the term and
premium of that insurance to the extent the information is known to
the beneficiary.
(F) The amount in an account, if any, maintained for the
accumulation of funds with which to pay taxes and insurance premiums.
(G) The nature and, if known, the amount of any additional
charges, costs, or expenses paid or incurred by the beneficiary which
have become a lien on the real property involved.
(H) Whether the obligation secured by the mortgage or deed of
trust can or may be transferred to a new borrower.
(3) “Delivery” means depositing or causing to be deposited in the
United States mail an envelope with postage prepaid, containing a
copy of the document to be delivered, addressed to the person whose
name and address is set forth in the demand therefor. The document
may also be transmitted by facsimile machine to the person whose name
and address is set forth in the demand therefor.
(4) “Entitled person” means the trustor or mortgagor of, or his or
her successor in interest in, the mortgaged or trust property or any
part thereof, any beneficiary under a deed of trust, any person
having a subordinate lien or encumbrance of record thereon, the
escrowholder licensed as an agent pursuant to Division 6 (commencing
with Section 17000) of the Financial Code, or the party exempt by
virtue of Section 17006 of the Financial Code who is acting as the
escrowholder.
(5) “Payoff demand statement” means a written statement, prepared
in response to a written demand made by an entitled person or
authorized agent, setting forth the amounts required as of the date
of preparation by the beneficiary, to fully satisfy all obligations
secured by the loan that is the subject of the payoff demand
statement. The written statement shall include information reasonably
necessary to calculate the payoff amount on a per diem basis for the
period of time, not to exceed 30 days, during which the per diem
amount is not changed by the terms of the note.
(6) “Short-pay agreement” means an agreement in writing in which
the beneficiary agrees to release its lien on a property in return
for payment of an amount less than the secured obligation.
(7) “Short-pay demand statement” means a written statement, issued
subsequent to and conditioned on the existence of a short-pay
agreement that is in possession of the entitled person, that is
prepared in response to a written demand made by an entitled person
or authorized agent, setting forth an amount less than the
outstanding debt, together with any terms and conditions, under which
the beneficiary will execute and deliver a reconveyance of the deed
of trust securing the note that is the subject of the short-pay
demand statement. The period shall not be greater than 30 days from
the date of preparation by the beneficiary.
(8) “Short-pay request” means a written request made by an
entitled person or authorized agent requesting the beneficiary to
provide a short-pay demand statement that includes all of the
following:
(A) A copy of an existing contract to purchase the property for an
amount certain.
(B) A copy of the short-pay agreement in the possession of the
entitled person.
(C) Information related to the release of any other liens on the
property, if any.
(b) (1) A beneficiary, or his or her authorized agent, shall,
within 21 days of the receipt of a written demand by an entitled
person or his or her authorized agent, prepare and deliver to the
person demanding it a true, correct, and complete copy of the note or
other evidence of indebtedness with any modification thereto, and a
beneficiary statement.
(2) A request pursuant to this subdivision may be made by an
entitled person or his or her authorized agent at any time before, or
within two months after, the recording of a notice of default under
a mortgage or deed of trust, or may otherwise be made more than 30
days prior to the entry of the decree of foreclosure.
(c) (1) A beneficiary, or his or her authorized agent, shall, on
the written demand of an entitled person, or his or her authorized
agent, prepare and deliver a payoff demand statement to the person
demanding it within 21 days of the receipt of the demand. However, if
the loan is subject to a recorded notice of default or a filed
complaint commencing a judicial foreclosure, the beneficiary shall
have no obligation to prepare and deliver this statement as
prescribed unless the written demand is received prior to the first
publication of a notice of sale or the notice of the first date of
sale established by a court.
(2) Except as provided in this subdivision, a beneficiary, or his
or her authorized agent, shall, upon receipt of a short-pay request,
prepare and deliver a short-pay demand statement to the person
requesting it within 21 days of the receipt of the short-pay request.
A beneficiary, or his or her authorized agent that elects not to
proceed with the transaction that is the subject of the short-pay
request may refuse to provide a short-pay demand statement for that
transaction, but shall provide a written statement to the person
requesting it, indicating that the beneficiary elects not to proceed
with the proposed transaction, within 21 days of the receipt of the
short-pay request. If the terms and conditions of the short-pay
agreement require approval by the beneficiary of a closing statement
or similar document prepared by an escrowholder, approval or
disapproval shall be provided not more than four days after receipt
by the beneficiary of the closing statement, or the closing statement
shall be deemed approved, provided that the statement is not clearly
contrary to the terms of the short-pay agreement or the short-pay
demand statement provided to the escrowholder.
(d) (1) A beneficiary statement, payoff demand statement, or
short-pay demand statement may be relied upon by the entitled person
or his or her authorized agent in accordance with its terms,
including with respect to the payoff demand statement or short-pay
demand statement reliance for the purpose of establishing the amount
necessary to pay the obligation in full. If the beneficiary notifies
the entitled person or his or her authorized agent of any amendment
to the statement, then the amended statement may be relied upon by
the entitled person or his or her authorized agent as provided in
this subdivision.
(2) If notification of any amendment to the statement is not given
in writing, then a written amendment to the statement shall be
delivered to the entitled person or his or her authorized agent no
later than the next business day after notification.
(3) Upon the dates specified in subparagraphs (A) and (B), any
sums that were due and for any reason not included in the statement
or amended statement shall continue to be recoverable by the
beneficiary as an unsecured obligation of the obligor pursuant to the
terms of the note and existing provisions of law.
(A) If the transaction is voluntary, the entitled party or his or
her authorized agent may rely upon the statement or amended statement
upon the earlier of (i) the close of escrow, (ii) transfer of title,
or (iii) recordation of a lien.
(B) If the loan is subject to a recorded notice of default or a
filed complaint commencing a judicial foreclosure, the entitled party
or his or her authorized agent may rely upon the statement or
amended statement upon the acceptance of the last and highest bid at
a trustee’s sale or a court supervised sale.
(e) The following provisions apply to a demand for either a
beneficiary statement, a payoff demand statement, or a short-pay
demand statement:
(1) If an entitled person or his or her authorized agent requests
a statement pursuant to this section and does not specify a
beneficiary statement, a payoff demand statement, or short-pay demand
statement the beneficiary shall treat the request as a request for a
payoff demand statement.
(2) If the entitled person or the entitled person’s authorized
agent includes in the written demand a specific request for a copy of
the deed of trust or mortgage, it shall be furnished with the
written statement at no additional charge.
(3) The beneficiary may, before delivering a statement, require
reasonable proof that the person making the demand is, in fact, an
entitled person or an authorized agent of an entitled person, in
which event the beneficiary shall not be subject to the penalties of
this section until 21 days after receipt of the proof herein provided
for. A statement in writing signed by the entitled person appointing
an authorized agent when delivered personally to the beneficiary or
delivered by registered return receipt mail shall constitute
reasonable proof as to the identity of an agent. Similar delivery of
a policy of title insurance, preliminary report issued by a title
company, original or photographic copy of a grant deed or certified
copy of letters testamentary, guardianship, or conservatorship shall
constitute reasonable proof as to the identity of a successor in
interest, provided the person demanding a statement is named as
successor in interest in the document.
(4) If a beneficiary for a period of 21 days after receipt of the
written demand willfully fails to prepare and deliver the statement,
he or she is liable to the entitled person for all damages which he
or she may sustain by reason of the refusal and, whether or not
actual damages are sustained, he or she shall forfeit to the entitled
person the sum of three hundred dollars ($300). Each failure to
prepare and deliver the statement, occurring at a time when, pursuant
to this section, the beneficiary is required to prepare and deliver
the statement, creates a separate cause of action, but a judgment
awarding an entitled person a forfeiture, or damages and forfeiture,
for any failure to prepare and deliver a statement bars recovery of
damages and forfeiture for any other failure to prepare and deliver a
statement, with respect to the same obligation, in compliance with a
demand therefor made within six months before or after the demand as
to which the award was made. For the purposes of this subdivision,
“willfully” means an intentional failure to comply with the
requirements of this section without just cause or excuse.
(5) If the beneficiary has more than one branch, office, or other
place of business, then the demand shall be made to the branch or
office address set forth in the payment billing notice or payment
book, and the statement, unless it specifies otherwise, shall be
deemed to apply only to the unpaid balance of the single obligation
named in the request and secured by the mortgage or deed of trust
which is payable at the branch or office whose address appears on the
aforesaid billing notice or payment book.
(6) The beneficiary may make a charge not to exceed thirty dollars
($30) for furnishing each required statement. The provisions of this
paragraph shall not apply to mortgages or deeds of trust insured by
the Federal Housing Administrator or guaranteed by the Administrator
of Veterans Affairs.
(f) The preparation and delivery of a beneficiary statement, a
payoff demand statement, or short-pay demand statement pursuant to
this section shall not change a date of sale established pursuant to
Section 2924g.
(g) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,
2014, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted
statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2014, deletes or extends
that date.

Statement of Unpaid Balance on Demand — Definitions
2943. (a) As used in this section:
(1) “Beneficiary” means a mortgagee or beneficiary of a mortgage
or deed of trust, or his or her assignees.
(2) “Beneficiary statement” means a written statement showing:
(A) The amount of the unpaid balance of the obligation secured by
the mortgage or deed of trust and the interest rate, together with
the total amounts, if any, of all overdue installments of either
principal or interest, or both.
(B) The amounts of periodic payments, if any.
(C) The date on which the obligation is due in whole or in part.
(D) The date to which real estate taxes and special assessments
have been paid to the extent the information is known to the
beneficiary.
(E) The amount of hazard insurance in effect and the term and
premium of that insurance to the extent the information is known to
the beneficiary.
(F) The amount in an account, if any, maintained for the
accumulation of funds with which to pay taxes and insurance premiums.
(G) The nature and, if known, the amount of any additional
charges, costs, or expenses paid or incurred by the beneficiary which
have become a lien on the real property involved.
(H) Whether the obligation secured by the mortgage or deed of
trust can or may be transferred to a new borrower.
(3) “Delivery” means depositing or causing to be deposited in the
United States mail an envelope with postage prepaid, containing a
copy of the document to be delivered, addressed to the person whose
name and address is set forth in the demand therefor. The document
may also be transmitted by facsimile machine to the person whose name
and address is set forth in the demand therefor.
(4) “Entitled person” means the trustor or mortgagor of, or his or
her successor in interest in, the mortgaged or trust property or any
part thereof, any beneficiary under a deed of trust, any person
having a subordinate lien or encumbrance of record thereon, the
escrowholder licensed as an agent pursuant to Division 6 (commencing
with Section 17000) of the Financial Code, or the party exempt by
virtue of Section 17006 of the Financial Code who is acting as the
escrowholder.
(5) “Payoff demand statement” means a written statement, prepared
in response to a written demand made by an entitled person or
authorized agent, setting forth the amounts required as of the date
of preparation by the beneficiary, to fully satisfy all obligations
secured by the loan that is the subject of the payoff demand
statement. The written statement shall include information reasonably
necessary to calculate the payoff amount on a per diem basis for the
period of time, not to exceed 30 days, during which the per diem
amount is not changed by the terms of the note.
(b) (1) A beneficiary, or his or her authorized agent, shall, within 21 days of the receipt of a written
demand by an entitled person or his or her authorized agent, prepare and deliver to the person
demanding it a true, correct, and complete copy of the note or other evidence of indebtedness with any
modification thereto, and a beneficiary statement.
(2) A request pursuant to this subdivision may be made by an entitled person or his or her authorized
agent at any time before, or within two months after, the recording of a notice of default under a
mortgage or deed of trust, or may otherwise be made more than 30 days prior to the entry of the decree
of foreclosure.
(c) A beneficiary, or his or her authorized agent, shall, on the written demand of an entitled person, or
his or her authorized agent, prepare and deliver a payoff demand statement to the person demanding it
within 21 days of the receipt of the demand. However, if the loan is subject to a recorded notice of
default or a filed complaint commencing a judicial foreclosure, the beneficiary shall have no obligation
to prepare and deliver this statement as prescribed unless the written demand is received prior to the
first publication of a notice of sale or the notice of the first date of sale established by a court.
(d) (1) A beneficiary statement or payoff demand statement may be relied upon by the entitled person or
his or her authorized agent in accordance with its terms, including with respect to the payoff demand
statement reliance for the purpose of establishing the amount necessary to pay the obligation in full. If
the beneficiary notifies the entitled person or his or her authorized agent of any amendment to the
statement, then the amended statement may be relied upon by the entitled person or his or her
authorized agent as provided in this subdivision.
(2) If notification of any amendment to the statement is not given in writing, then a written amendment to
the statement shall be delivered to the entitled person or his or her authorized agent no later than the
next business day after notification.
(3) Upon the dates specified in subparagraphs (A) and (B) any sums that were due and for any reason
not included in the statement or amended statement shall continue to be recoverable by the beneficiary
as an unsecured obligation of the obligor pursuant to the terms of the note and existing provisions of
law.
(A) If the transaction is voluntary, the entitled party or his or her authorized agent may rely upon the
statement or amended statement upon the earlier of (i) the close of escrow, (ii) transfer of title, or (iii)
recordation of a lien.
(B) If the loan is subject to a recorded notice of default or a filed complaint commencing a judicial
foreclosure, the entitled party or his or her authorized agent may rely upon the statement or amended
statement upon the acceptance of the last and highest bid at a trustee’s sale or a court supervised sale.
(e) The following provisions apply to a demand for either a beneficiary statement or a payoff demand
statement:
(1) If an entitled person or his or her authorized agent requests a statement pursuant to this section and
does not specify a beneficiary statement or a payoff demand statement the beneficiary shall treat the
request as a request for a payoff demand statement.
(2) If the entitled person or the entitled person’s authorized agent includes in the written demand a
specific request for a copy of the deed of trust or mortgage, it shall be furnished with the written
statement at no additional charge.
(3) The beneficiary may, before delivering a statement, require reasonable proof that the person making
the demand is, in fact, an entitled person or an authorized agent of an entitled person, in which event
the beneficiary shall not be subject to the penalties of this section until 21 days after receipt of the proof
herein provided for. A statement in writing signed by the entitled person appointing an authorized agent
when delivered personally to the beneficiary or delivered by registered return receipt mail shall
constitute reasonable proof as to the identity of an agent. Similar delivery of a policy of title insurance,
preliminary report issued by a title company, original or photographic copy of a grant deed or certified
copy of letters testamentary, guardianship, or conservatorship shall constitute reasonable proof as to
the identity of a successor in interest, provided the person demanding a statement is named as
successor in interest in the document.
(4) If a beneficiary for a period of 21 days after receipt of the written demand willfully fails to prepare
and deliver the statement, he or she is liable to the entitled person for all damages which he or she
may sustain by reason of the refusal and, whether or not actual damages are sustained, he or she shall
forfeit to the entitled person the sum of three hundred dollars ($300). Each failure to prepare and deliver
the statement, occurring at a time when, pursuant to this section, the beneficiary is required to prepare
and deliver the statement, creates a separate cause of action, but a judgment awarding an entitled
person a forfeiture, or damages and forfeiture, for any failure to prepare and deliver a statement bars
recovery of damages and forfeiture for any other failure to prepare and deliver a statement, with
respect to the same obligation, in compliance with a demand therefor made within six months before or
after the demand as to which the award was made. For the purposes of this subdivision, “willfully”
means an intentional failure to comply with the requirements of this section without just cause or
excuse.
(5) If the beneficiary has more than one branch, office, or other place of business, then the demand
shall be made to the branch or office address set forth in the payment billing notice or payment book,
and the statement, unless it specifies otherwise, shall be deemed to apply only to the unpaid balance of
the single obligation named in the request and secured by the mortgage or deed of trust which is
payable at the branch or office whose address appears on the aforesaid billing notice or payment book.
(6) The beneficiary may make a charge not to exceed thirty dollars ($30) for furnishing each required
statement. The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to mortgages or deeds of trust insured by
the Federal Housing Administrator or guaranteed by the Administrator of Veterans Affairs.
(f) The preparation and delivery of a beneficiary statement or a payoff demand statement pursuant to this
section shall not change a date of sale established pursuant to Section 2924g.
(g) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2014.

Commercial code Transactions or Interests
2944. None of the provisions of this chapter applies to any transaction or security interest governed by
the Commercial Code, except to the extent made applicable by reason of an election made by the
secured party pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 9604 of the
Commercial Code.

Refusal to Accept Policy Issued for Continuous Period Without Fixed Expiration Date
Prohibited
2944.5. No lender, mortgagee, or any third party having an interest in real or personal property shall
refuse to accept a policy issued by an admitted insurer solely because the policy is issued for a
continuous period without a fixed expiration date even though the policy premium is due and payable
every six months, provided the lender, mortgagee, or third party is entitled to receive (a) notice
of renewal from the insurer within 15 days of receipt of payment on the policy by the insured or (b)
notice of cancellation or nonrenewal under the terms and conditions set forth in Sections 678 and
2074.8 of the Insurance Code, whichever is applicable.

Loan Modification by Third Party
2944.6. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person who negotiates, attempts to
negotiate, arranges, attempts to arrange, or otherwise offers to perform a mortgage loan modification or
other form of mortgage loan forbearance for a fee or other compensation paid by the borrower, shall
provide the following to the borrower, as a separate statement, in not less than 14-point bold type, prior
to entering into any fee agreement with the borrower:
It is not necessary to pay a third party to arrange for a loan modification or other form of forbearance
from your mortgage lender or servicer. You may call your lender directly to ask for a change in
your loan terms. Nonprofit housing counseling agencies also offer these and other forms of borrower
assistance free of charge. A list of nonprofit housing counseling agencies approved by the United
States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is available from your local HUD office or
by visiting http://www.hud.gov.
(b) If loan modification or other mortgage loan forbearance services are offered or negotiated in one of
the languages set forth in Section 1632, a translated copy of the statement in subdivision (a) shall be
provided to the borrower in that foreign language.
(c) A violation of this section by a natural person is a public offense punishable by a fine not exceeding
ten thousand dollars ($10,000), by imprisonment in the county jail for a term not to exceed one year, or
by both that fine and imprisonment, or if by a business entity, the violation is punishable by a fine not
exceeding fifty thousand dollars ($50,000). These penalties are cumulative to
any other remedies or penalties provided by law. (d) This section does not apply to a person, or an
agent acting on that person’s behalf, offering loan modification or other loan forbearance services for a
loan owned or serviced by that person.
(e) This section shall apply only to mortgages and deeds of trust secured by residential real property
containing four or fewer dwelling units.

2944.7. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it shall be unlawful for any person who
negotiates, attempts to negotiate, arranges, attempts to arrange, or otherwise offers to perform a
mortgage loan modification or other form of mortgage loan forbearance for a fee or other compensation
paid by the borrower, to do any of the following:
(1) Claim, demand, charge, collect, or receive any compensation until after the person has fully
performed each and every service the person contracted to perform or represented that he or she
would perform.
(2) Take any wage assignment, any lien of any type on real or personal property, or other security to
secure the payment of compensation.
(3) Take any power of attorney from the borrower for any purpose.
(b) A violation of this section by a natural person is a public offense punishable by a fine not exceeding
ten thousand dollars ($10,000), by imprisonment in the county jail for a term not to
exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment, or if by a business entity, the violation is
punishable by a fine not exceeding fifty thousand dollars ($50,000). These penalties are cumulative to
any other remedies or penalties provided by law.
(c) Nothing in this section precludes a person, or an agent acting on that person’s behalf, who offers
loan modification or other loan forbearance services for a loan owned or serviced by that person,
from doing any of the following:
(1) Collecting principal, interest, or other charges under the terms of a loan, before the loan is modified,
including charges to establish a new payment schedule for a nondelinquent loan, after the
borrower reduces the unpaid principal balance of that loan for the express purpose of lowering the
monthly payment due under the terms of the loan.
(2) Collecting principal, interest, or other charges under the terms of a loan, after the loan is modified.
(3) Accepting payment from a federal agency in connection with the federal Making Home Affordable
Plan or other federal plan intended to help borrowers refinance or modify their loans or otherwise avoid
foreclosures.
(d) This section shall apply only to mortgages and deeds of trust secured by residential real property
containing four or fewer dwelling units.
(e) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2013, and as of that date is repealed, unless
a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2013, deletes or extends
that date.

2932.5 ruling

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (Deutsche Bank),

as Trustee for WaMu Series 2007-HEl Trust, its assignees

and/or successors (HEl Trust), moved for relief from the

automatic stay to proceed with foreclosure proceedings on

Debtors’ residence (Property). It is undisputed that the

claim asserted by Deutsche Bank on behalf of HEl Trust

exceeds the fair market value of the Property. The Debtors

filed no opposition and have indicated an intention to

surrender the Property. The Trustee opposed the motion on

the grounds that Deutsche Bank lacks standing in that

Deutsche Bank had failed to establish that it or HEl Trust,

the party represented thereby, held a perfected security

interest in the Property.

Because the Court finds that Deutsche Bank has failed

to provide evidence that it, let alone HEl Trust, has a

security interest in the Property, the Court denies the

motion for relief from stay without prejudice.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the

proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334 and General Order

No. 312-D of the United States District Court for the Southern

District of California. This is a core proceeding under

28 U.S.C. § 157(b) (2) (A) & (G).

BACKGROUND

On or about November 8, 2006, Debtors borrowed money from

WAMU and executed a promissory note in favor of WAMU of the same

date (Note). Debtors also executed a deed of trust granting

WAMU a security interest in the Property (Deed of Trust). On

December 17, 2007 Debtors filed a petition commencing this

bankruptcy case. According to Debtors’ schedules, the value of

the Property ($863,931.00) was less than the amount owed on the

Note and secured by the Deed of Trust ($998,016.00). Debtors’

schedules list WAMU as the secured creditor on the Property.

Debtors indicated their intention to surrender the Property.

On January 25, 2008, Deutsche Bank, “as Trustee for” HE1

Trust, moved for relief from stay to proceed with foreclosure on

the Property. In support of the motion Deutsche Bank submitted a

declaration of Lori Brecheen – an officer of WAMU “as Servicing

Agent for Movant.” The declaration included a copy of the Deed

of Trust and the Note. The Deed of Trust lists WAMU as the

beneficiary and “California Reconveyance Company” as the

“Trustee.” The Promissory Note lists WAMU as the Lender and

payee.

As noted, the Debtors did not oppose the motion, but the

Trustee did on the ground that Deutsche Bank failed to establish

that it had standing to bring the motion because it had failed to

prove that it had a perfected lien against the Property.

In the Reply to the Trustee’s opposition, Deutsche Bank

asserts that it is the “current beneficiary of a promissory note

and deed of trust by way of assignment … ” In a subsequent

declaration, Ms. Brecheen declared that WAMU “transferred the

NOTE and DEED OF TRUST to DEUTSCHE BANK.” She went on to explain

that since transferring the Note and Deed of Trust, WAMU has

acted as servicing agent for Deutsche Bank on the loan. As agent

for Deutsche Bank, WAMU was in possession of the Note, as

endorsed to Deutsche Bank. Attached to the supplemental

declaration was a copy of the Note with an added page with what

Ms. Brecheen contends is the endorsement. As discussed below, it

is simply a stamp signed by a vice president of WAMU reading “Pay

to the order of ” – the space for payees is left blank.

The Court held a hearing on the matter and took it under

submission.

DISCUSSION

It is undisputed that the subject Property is, as the saying

goes, underwater. All parties seem to agree that the claim

secured by the Property exceeds the value of the Property. The

Debtors are prepared to abandon the Property. The only issue

before the Court is whether Deutsche Bank is in a position to

seek relief from the stay.

Bankruptcy Code section 362(d) provides for relief from stay

on request of a “party in interest.” Party in interest for the

purposes of a motion for relief from stay is not defined.

However, the Court agrees with the court in In re Maisel, that

“[a] party seeking relief from the automatic stay to exercise

rights as to property must demonstrate at least a colorable claim

to the property.” 378 B.R. 19, 21 (Bankr.D.Mass. 2007) (citing In

re Huggins, 357 B.R. 180, 185 (Bankr.D.Mass. 2006). That is,

since Deutsche Bank seeks relief from stay to proceed against the

Property, it must establish that it, or more accurately the party

it represents, HE1 Trust, has a security interest in such

property. As movant, Deutsche Bank has the responsibility to

convince the Court that the party seeking relief from the stay

with respect to the Property has an interest in the Property.

Deutsche Bank has failed to do so.

In support of the motion, Deutsche Bank has provided the

copies of the original Note and Deed of Trust. However, both the

undisputed that WAMU held a security interest in the Property by

virtue of the Deed of Trust, Deutsche Bank has provided no

evidence at all that any interest in the Deed of Trust was ever

assigned from WAMU to Deutsche Bank, or to anyone else for that

matter. In her supplemental declaration Ms. Brecheen declares

that the Deed of Trust was “transferred” to Deutsche Bank.

However, Deutsche Bank has provided no authority (and the Court

is aware of none) for the apparent proposition that transfer of

the Deed of Trust without assignment, let alone recordation, is

sufficient to give Deutsche Bank or HEl Trust a security interest

in the Property. As it stands on the record before the Court,

the Deed of Trust remains in the name (and possession) of WAMU. 1

Nothing in the Deed of Trust as written or in the way in which it

has been handled gives any indication that Deutsche Bank or HEl

Trust has a security interest in the Property. Not surprisingly

therefor, Deutsche Bank focuses the Court’s attention on the

Note.

The Note too runs solely in favor of WAMU. The copy of the

Note produced in connection with the Motion gave no indication

that anyone but WAMU had an interest therein. In response to the

Trustee’s opposition, Deutsche Bank eventually produced a copy of

the Note with an additional, unnumbered, undated page attached,

which appears to been endorsement by WAMU. However, the “Pay to

the order of” line of the endorsement is blank. There is no

indication from the face of the Note as endorsed that it was

endorsed to Deutsche Bank and/or HEl Trust.

The sole evidence that Deutsche Bank provides which would

indicate to the Court that Deutsche Bank might have any interest

at all in the Property, is the supplemental declaration of

Ms. Brecheen that the Note had been transferred to Deutsche Bank.

Assuming for the sake of argument that this “transfer” amounts to

an “assignment,” such an assignment of the Note appears to be

sufficient under California to give Deutsche Bank a security

interest in the Property.

California Civil Code § 2932.5 provides:

Where a power to sell real property is given to a

mortgagee, or other encumbrancer, in an instrument

intended to secure the payment of money, the power is

part of the security and vests in any person who by

assignment becomes entitled to payment of the money

secured by the instrument. The power of sale may be

exercised by the assignee if the assignment is duly

acknowledged and recorded.

The Court is aware of no California case law interpreting this

section. However, it appears to indicate that a security

interest runs with the obligation – in terms of the case at hand,

that is, an assignment of the Note amounts to an assignment of

the Deed of Trust. 2 However, as indicated, Deutsche Bank has

provided no convincing evidence that the Note was ever assigned

to Deutsche Bank. Furthermore, even if the Note was assigned to

Deutsche Bank, Deutsche Bank is not the party asserting a

security interest in the Property. Rather, the motion is brought

by Deutsche Bank as Trustee for HEI Trust. The record is devoid

of any further assignment to HEI Trust.

In summary, the only question before this Court is whether

Deutsche Bank and/or HEI Trust has an interest in the Property.

The Court holds that Deutsche Bank has failed to provide evidence

that it, let alone HEI Trust, has a security interest in the

Property. 3 Accordingly, the motion is denied.

The Trustee argues that based upon the last line of § 2932.5 Deutsche Bank may not

foreclose on the Property because the assignment was not recorded. That may well be.

However, that is an issue the Trustee can raise with the state court if relief from stay is ultimately

granted.

Both parties allotted much ink and paper to the issue of whether Deutsche Bank has a

perfected security interest in the Note. The Court finds this discussion beyond the scope of the

motion before it. Deutsche Bank has moved for relief from stay to proceed against the Property.

Whether or not it holds a security interest in the Note is irrelevant. Since we are not concerned

with a security interest in the Note, all talk of a “perfected lien” on the Note is beside the point.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above Deutsche Bank’s motion for

relief from stay is denied without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: JUN – 9 2008

PE ER W. BOWIE, Chief Judge

United States Bankruptcy Court

Understanding California Civil Code Section 2932.5.

Can a lender or their agent (ex, the loan servicer) pursue a non-judicial foreclose on real property via exercising the power of sale contained in the deed of trust, if the alleged creditor has only the note and no assignment and recording of the deed of trust (the security for payment of the note)?
Posted by Foreclosure Defense Attorney Steve Vondran on July 18, 2010 · Leave a Comment

Can a lender or their agent (ex, the loan servicer) pursue a non-judicial foreclose on real property via exercising the power of sale contained in the deed of trust, if the alleged creditor has only the note and no assignment and recording of the deed of trust (the security for payment of the note)? Understanding California Civil Code Section 2932.5.

This article is general legal information only and not intended to serve as legal advice or a substitute for legal advice. As law is constantly changing and evolving, the information may not be 100% complete, accurate or up-to-date. For specific questions about your legal liability in regard to junior loans, please contact a skilled and experienced real estate or foreclosure defense lawyer.

Steve Vondran is a California Real Estate Lawyer who is licensed to practice law in California and Arizona. He also holds a real estate broker’s license in California and Arizona and has a background in mortgage brokering and commercial real estate. HE can be reached at steve@vondranlaw.com or (877) 276-5084 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (877) 276-5084 end_of_the_skype_highlighting.

________________________________________________________________

First, let’s get some general rules on the table that lenders and their attorneys will rely on when seeking to foreclose on your property:

(1) There is no obligation to produce the original note if a lender seeks to conduct a private trustee sale (i.e. a non-judicial foreclosure that relies on the power of sale contained in the deed of trust). In other words, do not try to file for an injunction in a court of law to fight the lender and challenge whether or not they own the loan, because you have no right to ask who is foreclosing on you in a private sale. Sad yes, but such is the law. Therefore, in a non-judicial foreclosure setting, there is no way to force them to prove they are in fact your creditor with the right to foreclose. Their mere allegation that they have the note is all they need if you challenge them at this stage, and do not expect the judge to rule otherwise.

See our Blog posting on this page for more details: http://www.foreclosuredefenseresourcecenter.com/2010/03/can-a-california-homeowner-demand-that-the-lender-or-loan-servicer-produce-the-note-as-a-foreclosure-defense-strategy/.

(2) In support of their right to foreclose non-judicially, lenders like to use the “security follows the note” argument and line of cases to support their position that if they merely allege that they have the note, then that must also mean they have the security interest (i.e. the deed of trust or mortgage) whether or not the security interest is/was specifically assigned to them – normally by MERS who originally records the security interest in as many as 60 million mortgages across the United States. For this proposition they usually cite two cases: (a) Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 271, 275 (1873); and (b) Restatement Third of Property (Mortgages) Section 5.4 (1997). Note that these pre-date most loan securitization.

LONGAN: In Longan the United States Supreme Court held: “The note and mortgage are inseparable; the former as essential, the latter as an incident. An assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity.” Note, this case says only that assigning the note also assigns the security (i.e. the right to foreclose). The case does NOT say that the POWER OF SALE is also assigned when a note is assigned. This is important, because without the power of sale, a lender should be relegated to conducting a JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE SALE AND NOT A PRIVATE TRUSTEE SALE USING THE POWER OF SALE.

RESTATMENT: It appears to be the general rule in California that the transfer of a mortgage note transfers with it the related mortgage – “the mortgage follows the note” as they say. The RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF PROPERTY (MORTGAGES) § 5.4 (1997), relied on by many lenders in their briefs, states: “a transfer of an obligation secured by a mortgage also transfers the mortgage unless the parties to the transfer agree otherwise.” The rationale is to avoid economic waste to the lender and avoid a windfall to the borrower if the note and mortgage are split – rendering the mortgage note unsecured. The Restatement also cites the case of Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 271 (1827) “all the authorities agree that the debt is the principal thing and the mortgage an accessory.”

These cases seem to give the lenders wide latitude to just merely claim they own the note (they never want to show it) and have the Court agree that the security naturally follows (whether or not the deed of trust was assigned, acknowledged, and recorded) and that the lender therefore has standing to lift a stay in bankruptcy court. If the lender can show proof of the original promissory note in the BK lift-stay motion, I would say I might agree. But again, they will not want to show the note, and it is up to the BK judge to demand they show this critical piece of evidence before they allow a creditor to lift the automatic stay. If you want legal authority take a look at In re Hwang, 396 B.R. 757 (C.D. California 2008. I have attached a link to my case brief on this important case: http://www.producethenoteattorney.com/2010/05/in-re-hwang-an-overview-of-motion-for-relief-from-automatic-stay-real-party-in-interest-and-constitutional-standing-requirements-in-a-california-bankruptcy-court/

But is the same true if a homeowner files for an injunction trying to prevent a lender from conducting a non-judicial foreclosure sale where there is simply no proof the lender has physical possession of the note and the chain of title does not indicate any assignment or recording of the deed of trust (i.e. the power of private sale never conveyed per 2932.5)?

Applying Constitutional law standards, States are always free to grant more rights and freedoms that the United States Supreme Court may grant, but states cannot provide less. I would argue that is what California did when it enacted Civil Code Section 2932.5 by requiring an actual assignment and recording of the deed of trust if the lender/mortgagee wants to exercise the power of sale and conduct a private trustee sale – Notice of Default / Notice of Sale – outside the watchful eye of the Court (as would be required in a judicial sale). In other words, if a lender wants to foreclose in a non-judicial private trustee sale fashion, it would seem they need both the endorsed note and physical possession of such – or, physical possession of the note endorsed in blank – AND the assignment of the deed of trust duly acknowledged and recorded as required under California Civil Code Section 2932.5. Without both, I would argue a lender is relegated to a judicial foreclosure sale only, and the Court should enjoin the attempted and threatened private trustee sale. At least that is my honest opinion and it would be great if it worked out that way. There is not a lot of case law on this curious code section.

Let’s take a look at 2932.5 and tell me if you agree. First off, here is a link to the law I am talking about so we can all take a look at it. It is short and sweet so do not be intimidated. http://law.onecle.com/california/civil/2932.5.html I have pasted the law below if you are the type of person who hates opening up links:

“Where a power to sell real property is given to a mortgagee, or other encumbrancer, in an instrument intended to secure the payment of money, the power is part of the security and vests in any person who by assignment becomes entitled to payment of the money secured by the instrument. The power of sale may be exercised by the assignee if the assignment is duly acknowledged and recorded.”

Looks to me like the power of sale (i.e. the right to pursue a private judicial foreclosure sale) requires an assignment of the deed of trust and recording of such in the County recorder’s office. If that is not what this law means, then what does it mean? In other words, if a lender conducts a private trustee sale and the chain of title reflects that there has been no assignment or recording of the deed by that lender or its agent, wouldn’t that make the private sale voidable and subject to set aside? See our blog piece on the “lender please don’t make me tender” rule before you get excited. Here is a link to that post.

http://www.foreclosuredefenseresourcecenter.com/2010/03/phoenix-foreclosure-lawyer/

Bolstering this position that the deed of trust must be assigned, acknowledged, and recorded before exercising the private power of sale in California is the case of Strike v. Transwest Discount Corp, 92 CA3d, 735 (1979). In this case the court held:

“A recorded assignment of note and deed of trust vests in the assignee all of the rights, interests of the beneficiary (Musgrave v. Renkin, 180 Cal. 785 [183 P. 145]) including authority to exercise any power of sale given the beneficiary (Civ. Code, § 858)…… The power of sale here derived from the instrument itself. (Civ. Code, § 2932; McDonald v. Smoke Creek Live Stock, 209 Cal. 231).”

Therefore, I would think you have at least a fair argument that a lender seeking to foreclose non-judicially, outside the Courts presence (as in a judicial foreclosure), that they would need to be able to establish that the deed of trust was properly assigned and recorded in addition to owning the note, although as discussed above they don’t have to show the note. If there is no proof of recorded assignment of the security in the County Recorder’s office, I would argue the lender has only the right to foreclose judicially (subject to a four year statute of limitations**), and by filing the Notice of Sale and Notice of Default, the lender has indicated that they are not willing to go that route. The problem is, if you filed for an injunction, they would probably just quickly assign and record the deed of trust killing the argument altogether. If any one else has any other opinions or interpretations, or even case law, I would love to see/hear it.

** There are time limits to file a judicial foreclosure as stated in the case of Aviel v. Ng, 161 Cal.App.4th 809, (2008) where the Court held: “The running of the statute of limitations on an obligation underlying a mortgage or deed of trust bars judicial foreclosure of the mortgage as well as an action to enforce the obligation. Cal.Civ.Code § 2911(1).”

For now, suffice it to say, this might be something to look into or argue if you are going all out and trying to save your home from foreclosure. Before filing any civil lawsuit, you should consult with a real estate or foreclosure lawyer to determine whether you have proper legal grounds to file a lawsuit.

One way this popped up in a bankruptcy case was the lender sought to record the assignment of the deed of trust while the borrower was in bankruptcy court and protected by the automatic stay. We are arguing that this is an attempt to perfect its right to non-judicially foreclose (i.e. they are trying to comply with 2932.5 to get the right to foreclose non-judicially) and that such action to perfect its interest violates Bankruptcy Code Section 362 which prohibits the following:

(3) any act to obtain possession of property of the estate or of property from the estate or to exercise control over property of the estate;

(4) any act to create, perfect, or enforce any lien against property of the estate;

(5) any act to create, perfect, or enforce against property of the debtor any lien to the extent that such lien secures a claim that arose before the commencement of the case under this title;

(6) any act to collect, assess, or recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case under this title;

Again, just trying to give you some things to think about as you fight to save your home from foreclosure. Although the security may follow the note and that may be fine to judicially foreclose, perhaps that security interest must be assigned, acknowledged and recorded in order to preserve the right to conduct the private non-judicial trustee sale under the power of sale contained in the security. The deed of trust itself may also have some language you need to look at that that may dictate other rights.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

NOTICE: The foregoing information is general legal information only and shall not be relied upon as legal advice, or a substitution for legal advice. If you have specific legal questions about your foreclosure case you should seek out the advice of a real estate attorney. In addition, the information posted above may not be 100% complete, accurate or up-to-date. Law is always changing. The Law Offices of Steve Vondran is licensed to practice law in the state of Arizona and California and only seeks to solicit and serve Clients in these two states. Steve Vondran, Esq. is a licensed attorney and real estate broker in California and Arizona. He can be reached by email at steve@vondranlaw.com or toll free (877) 276-5084 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (877) 276-5084 end_of_the_skype_highlighting. This is an advertisement and communication pursuant to State Bar Rules. Please do not send us private or confidential information through any of our above-listed websites. Sending us an email does not create an attorney-client relationship (only signing a legal retainer will do this). Copyright 2010 – Law Offices of Steven C. Vondran – All Rights Reserved.

	Randolph Frodsham on Viral Burger King Worker Fired…
	April on Prosecuting Violations of the…
	Kansas Supreme Court… on MERS Is Dead: Can Be Sued For…
	frontncenter on NOMI PRINS…Foreclosure c…
	Yadullah westry on Robo-signers List

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Suggestions

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Bank Robo-Signers Oust Homeowners

Share this:

Debunking the Gospel of Garfield

Comments

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

GMAC’s Errors Leave Foreclosures in Question

By DAVID STREITFELD

The federal government, which became the majority owner of GMAC after supplying $17 billion to prevent the lender’s failure, said Friday that it had told the company to clean up its act.

“You know those billboards that lawyers put up seeking divorcing or bankrupt clients?” asked Greg Clark, a Florida real estate lawyer. “It’s only a matter of time until they start putting up signs that say, ‘You might be entitled to cash payment for wrongful foreclosure.’ ”

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: