There have been several amicus curiae briefs filed in the last few days in the Yvanova case, currently pending before the California Supreme Court on Glaski-type issues of a borrower’s ability to challenge the foreclosing party’s authority, whether it came from a bad assignment, or from a hallucination from the Dalai Lama.
California Attorney General FINAL-Amicus Brief-Yvanova pdf pdf (Attachment) Copy
National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) and National Association of Consumer Advocates (NACA)NCLC amicus brief Yvanova
Consumer Attorneys of California (CAOC)CAOC brief Consumer Attorneys Amicus Yvanova
And let’s not forget this doozie filed by the Banker’s Association. 2015-04-20_Yvanova_v _New_Century_Amicus_Cal_Bankers_Assoc (2)
Maybe I’m not being entirely fair but it seems to consist mainly of a major distraction tactic of showing false concern for homeowners. You see, guys, these are just homeowner “delay” tactics (these pesky laws as set forth in the statutes and the contracts governing the loan transaction), and “studies” (no doubt commissioned by the Banker’s Aid Relief Charitable Society) show that giving distressed homeowners more time in their homes does not improve their chance of successful reinstatement.” Huh? What does that have to do with the issue of whether a foreclosing party is civilly liable for exercising authority he does not have to take real property that does not belong to him?