You remember Glaski, in which a California Appeals Court found that borrowers have standing to challenge void assignments of their loans, even if they were not a party to or a beneficiary of the assignment.
In Glaski, the court held that a borrower has standing to challenge an assignment if the defect would void it, but not when it is merely voidable by the assignor. In Glaski, the WaMu Securitized Trust was formed under and governed by New York law, under which a statute provides that every conveyance or other trustee act in contravention of the trust is void. The Glaski court joined other courts in reading the statute literally and held that acceptance of a note and mortgage by the trustee after the date the trust closed would be void. Thus, Glaski stated a claim for wrongful foreclosure by alleging that the transfer was ineffective.
Hence began the banks’ feverish efforts to depublish Glaski. Why? Because in many jurisdictions, unpublished authority cannot be cited, and lacks the precedential authority of a published decision.
Today, the California Court declined to depublish Glaski, after receiving reams and reams of briefing on the issue.
Strangely, some of California’s trial courts have refused to follow Glaski, raising the issue of whether they are violating principles of stare decisis.