All Causes of Action Survive Motion to Dismiss in California Federal Case Against Bank of America
By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.
Thanks to Brian Davies for this one. Prosper Law Group’s complaint in Johnson vs. HSBC Bank USA, NA as Trustee for the Ellington Trust Series 2007-1, Bank of America, NA and does 1 – 10 inclusive contains 7 causes of action. The conclusion and order from Federal Judge Jeffrey T. Miller is:
For the reasons stated above, the motion to dismiss is DENIED. Defendants’ motion has failed to demonstrate that Plaintiff’s claims were implausible or precluded as a matter of law.
The following is an excerpt, but the rest is great reading also.
A. Viability of Attack on Loan Securitization
1. Ability to Challenge Loan Securitization
The threshold issue of whether Plaintiff can make any claim related to the loan’s securitization affects the viability of many of the individual claims discussed below. BOA cites Rodenhurst v. Bank of America, 773 F.Supp.2d 886, 899 (D. Haw. 2011) for its statement that “[t]he overwhelming authority does not support a cause of action based upon improper securitization.” However, the discussion cited in that case centers on plaintiffs who claim that securitization itself violates the agreement between the mortgagor and mortgagee. Here, Plaintiff does not dispute the right to securitize the mortgage, but alleges that as a result of improper procedures, the true owner of his mortgage is unclear. As a result, he has allegedly been paying improper entities an excess amount. Continue reading “All Causes of Action Survive Motion to Dismiss in California Federal Case Against Bank of America”
The Wrong Remedy at the Wrong Time, Part 1
By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.
New Note added on 1/22/2012 thanks to Simonee. California Probate Code does not seem to apply based on this California Supreme Court decision: Monterey S.P. Partnership v. W. L. Bangham, Inc. (1989) 49 Cal.3d 454 , 261 Cal.Rptr. 587; 777 P.2d 623 (download here: http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Monterey_SP_Partnership_vs_WL_Bangham.pdf)
Monterey S.P. Partnership v. W. L. Bangham, Inc. (1989) 49 Cal.3d 454 , 261 Cal.Rptr. 587; 777 P.2d 623
Here is a quick overview of what happens in a non-judicial foreclosure. If you are in a judicial state, this post does not apply directly to your case. But if you understand what happens in a non-judicial foreclosure, you may get insight into what might apply to your case.
I am not indicating that any of these documents are true or accurate, just that this is what typically happens.
Closing the Transaction
The homeowner executes a note and security instrument (i.e. Deed of Trust). The parties to the trust created by the Deed of Trust are the trustor (homeowner), trustee (usually a title company) and the beneficiary (either MERS or the named lender). Everyone seems to assume that the trust was constituted (created), that it is valid and continuing. This is where the trouble begins (not really, but for this article we will assume it begins here and not before).
Notice of Default
Supposedly the Notice of Default is recorded and sent to the homeowner by the agent for the beneficiary. Who is the beneficiary? Looking at my notice of default the only beneficiary mentioned is MERS. However, other documents sent usually point to one or more other parties who “might” be a beneficiary.
Continue reading “The Wrong Remedy at the Wrong Time, Part 1”