2932.5 = Sabotage or Salvation?

Calvo v. HSBC was affirmed by Ca. Supremes on 1/4/12. It seems to sound the death knell on 2932.5 (Civil Code that required recorded assignments to retain power to foreclose).

But as Sun Tsu observed “… your enemies will bring weapons to you”. Citing Calvo, a borrower may be able to raise the argument that any RJN (request for judicial notice) for recorded assigned documents is moot because the Calvo ruling determines that not all possible transfers of the beneficiary interest are available to the court as a result. Therefore, lender can no longer rely solely on recorded assignments as evidence of possession of beneficiary interest, and standing of lender is automatically questioned unless lender is the same entity shown on the promissory note.

With an automatic question of standing of Lender as a party of interest, certainly the question of tender to a party over which the court may have no jurisdiction is no longer required, as the exceptions listed in the Lona v Citibank decision.

5/12 - Phred is delirious from kidney stones, and had a moment of clarity. The judges in Calvo state that title is passed to the trustee when the loan is issued. As Neil Garfield noted, this is incorrect, as only a conditional title is transferred, and then only upon receipt of a written document from the beneficiary of the note. Here are 2 scenarios that point to the obvious 'law flaw' that provide reason to investigate the judges who made this obscene decision. The first is a question of who can subdivide a property, the trustee, the landowner, or the beneficiary? Clearly the judges were bent over their desks cleaning the dust off when this question was raised. And I guess they were busy cleaning out their wastebaskets when the question of a second mortgage, with a second deed of trust came up. Which trustee holds the title now? Or maybe the judges figure it's some kind of time share thing, like with their cabins in Tahoe.

Mark V. Mooney (L.A. Superior Ct); confirmed by: GRIMES, J., BIGELOW, P. J., FLIER, J.

The opinion above is from a person who is not an attorney, and should not be construed as legal advice. Pay a bunch of money to consult a REAL attorney, then ask why they didn’t post this comment.

Posted with the hopes it will fry some judges’ reputations who are obviously on the take by the banksters.