California Supreme Court Refuses to Depublish Glaski Decision

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  Because in many jurisdictions, unpublished authority cannot be cited, and lacks the precedential authority of a published decision.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.


3 thoughts on “California Supreme Court Refuses to Depublish Glaski Decision

  1. The Non Judicial Foreclosure Process in Maryland has experienced very little change since 2008. Courts in Maryland refuse to see the truth as evidenced in documents being submitted referencing the chain of title. I had a foreclosure in 2009 involving Countrywide Home Loans Servicing/BAC Home Loan Servicing and Lender GSR2006-2F Mortgage Loan Trust. Sometime during my foreclosure the substitute trustee’s steal the junior note (which BOA provides many statements showing a 0 balance and Paid Off) and later gives the junior note to Dyck O’Neal Inc. a Junk Debt Buyer. The courts in Maryland refuse to admit any evidence showing the many statements and letters from BOA showing paid in full and a 0 balance statement. The courts, BOA and illegal junk debt buyers do not want the crimes being committed against us and others who are situated in the same or similar circumstances to be visible to the general public. Presently we are filing a Certiorari in the Court of Appeals in Maryland. The problem is we have experienced being dismissed by Clerk’s and employee’s of the Clerk’s office. Orders written by novices lacking case law on the subject matter and braking the rules that our appeal was filed under. Finally, the process of foreclosure and post foreclosure has damaged many American’s and continues to do so long after the foreclosure process. The constitution is being violated when the court review In Rem and foreclosures cases.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s