CALIFORNIA FEDERAL COURT DENIES MOTION TO DISMISS HOMEOWNER’S COMPLAINT, HOLDING THAT ALLEGATIONS THAT ASSIGNMENTS TO A SECURITIZED TRUST WERE NOT DONE PROPERLY OR TIMELY GIVES RISE TO INFERENCE THAT ASSIGNMENT, SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE, AND NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND ELECTION TO SELL MAY HAVE BEEN IMPROPER |
August 3, 2012
In what we consider to be a very significfant decision, a California Federal court has issued an Order denying a Motion to Dismiss the homeowner’s Complaint against JPMorgan Chase, U.S. Bank, N.A., and SBMC Mortgage where the homeowner challenged the nonjudicial foreclosure on the basis of an improper transfer of the loan to the securitized mortgage loan trust. The homeowner alleged that the Defendants and others were involved in an attempt to securitize her loan to a WaMu securitization trust.
The homeowner alleged that the May, 2010 MERS assignment of the DOT to US Bank as Trustee for the WaMu securitization trust, which assignment was signed by known robo-signor Colleen Irby, was improper because it was not done before the closing date of the trust. The court specifically found that:
“The vital allegation in this case is the assignment of the loan into the WaMu Trust was not completed by May 30, 2006 as required by the Trust Agreement. This allegation gives rise to a plausible inference that the subsequent assignment, substitution, and notice of default and election to sell may also be improper.”
This is beyond important, as the finding shows that a challenge can be made to an entire nonjudicial foreclosure procedure (including assignment, substitution of trustee, and foreclosure sale) by alleging that the purported assignment did not comply with the timing requirements of the trust documents, and that a homeowner who sues to challenge a foreclosure has standing to raise the challenge onthe basis of attacking the assignment as not complying with the trust documents.
The Court distinguished the Gomes case upon which the Defendants relied, holding that the Plaintiff alleged that the transfer of rights to the WaMu Trust was improper and thus the Defendants consequently lack the legal right to either collect on the debt or enforce the underlying security interest.
The upshot of this case is not only that a claim of improper foreclosure due to noncompliance with the trust documents (in attempting to assign the loan to the trust well after the Closing Date of the Trust) can be made, but that there will now have to be discovery on the issues, as the Court has denied the Motion to Dismiss and thus an Answer to the homeowner’s Complaint will have to be served, which then permits the case to proceed to the discovery phase on the relevant issues.
The case is Naranjo v. SBMC Mortgtage et al., No. 11-cv-2229-L(WVG), U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, decision issued July 24, 2012.
We thank one of our dedicated followers for providing this significant decision to us.
Jeff Barnes, Esq., www.ForeclosureDefenseNationwide.com
Manifest Injustice 