pre-foreclosure only

21 May

Cause of Action Under CCC § 2923.5, Post Trustee’s Sale –
There is no private right of action under Section 2923.5 once the
trustee’s sale has occurred.  The “only remedy available under the
Section is a postponement of the sale before it happens.”  Mabry v.
Superior  Court, 185 Cal. App. 4th 208, 235 (2010).

Advertisements

4 Responses to “pre-foreclosure only”

  1. John May 21, 2011 at 7:22 pm #

    Standing and Jurisdiction can be challenged at anytime even post foreclosure / sale. A lack of standing or jurisdiction to conduct the foreclosure / sale invalidates the foreclosure / sale. Site omitted….

  2. MARIO KENNY May 22, 2011 at 4:52 am #

    So if a sale occurred and was not properly supported by the legally sufficient documents can it be over turned?

  3. Angel June 14, 2011 at 1:22 am #

    @John, I don’t know if you’re in California, but if so (or any other nonjudicial foreclosure jurisdiction) you may want to revisit that thought and see if it is applicable.

    Standing and jurisdiction as you are using those terms would only apply to judicial actions. Since nonjudicial foreclosure is not that, then those matters would be inappropriate.

    @Mario, sales will only be over turned if there’s fraud involved. Outside of this I’m unaware of any other remedy to do so. This is due to the applicable statute deeming recitals in a trustee’s deed as conclusive. Many people through that word around (fraud), but don’t look into the legal elements necessary for a successful claim.

  4. John June 15, 2011 at 6:22 am #

    @Angle

    I am in a non-judicial foreclosure state. We were a judicial foreclosure state until the banks paid a certain attorney and lobbied all the crooks in our government to change the law. We also had a 1 year redemption period. I am working now with others to bring this awareness to the people and vote to have it changed.

    Please take a look at this Mortgage Fraud Seminar put on by the Texas Office of the Attorney General, June 15, 2009. Securitization: The Big Picture. In there you will find a reference to the Federal Register, Friday, January 7, 2005, Part II, Securities and Exchange Commission, 17 CFR Parts 210, 228, et. al. Asset-Backed Securities; Final Rule.

    The agency is the Securities and Exchange Commission and are their comments.

    There is a lot that is revealed that most on this blog are not even aware of as most do not deal in Securities mostly based upon their income.

    Example: Page 1508, “Asset-backed securities are securities that are backed by a discrete pool of self-liquidating financial assets. Asset-backed securitization is a financing technique in which financial assets, in many cases themselves less liquid, are pooled and converted into instruments that may be offered and sold in the capital markets.

    IN a basic securitization structure, an entity, often a financial institution and commonly known as a “sponsor,” originates or otherwise acquires a pool of financial assets, such as mortgage loans, either directly or through an affiliate…..

    What I see, as well as others, is that the S&E Commission failed to make any rules as to what the heck they were attempting to do with the Note when it was CONVERTED into certificates or bonds. Oops!

    Look up the word “converted” in any law dictionary. There simply is no enforceability of the Note as it does not exist after being converted. I cannot find where the newly created Certificate or Bond is subject to the TIL or FDCPA. It is subjected to the Securities and Exchange Act of 1937. If the Note that was converted was not delivered to the Trust and has the proper endorsements, the SE considers this a void transaction and an unregistered instrument. Any attempt to bring into a court of law (equity) the Note would be prima facia evidence of fraud.

    http://www.creditslips.org/creditslips/LevitinAuthor.html

    I have yet to have any attorney prove me wrong in my research. Most attorneys are going up against Judges who have not done one bit of research on their own, mostly because of their work / case loads.

    Just my opinion….

    Oh, just one more thought here, if the Note does not exist or is unenforceable, the Mortgage/DOT fails also. No promise to pay, no security.

    john

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: