QUIET TITLE ACTIONS IN CALIFORNIA – A BASIC OVERVIEW
The following is general legal information and is not to be construed as legal advice or a substitute for legal advice. The information below many not be complete, accurate, or up-to-date as law can, and does frequently change. For specific questions about your quiet title case, contact a real estate or foreclosure defense attorney to review the facts of your case.
Steve Vondran, Esq. practices Real Estate, Foreclosure Defense & Bankruptcy Law in Phoenix, Arizona, and California where he is licensed to practice law. He can be reached email@example.com or (877) 276-5084.
CALIFORNIA QUIET TITLE LAW – A GENERAL OVERVIEW
The statutory provisions for Quiet Title in California can be found in the California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 760.10-760.060. A Quiet Title action is basically a legal action that seeks to “quiet title” to property where adverse claims are made against the property. For example, where a lender wrongfully forecloses on a property and claims the property as their own, but the homeowner challenges this.
Here is the California Quiet Title Statutory Law (there are also cases interpreting these quiet title provisions). Bolded and italics material are provided by me:
760.010. As used in this chapter:
(a) “Claim” includes a legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien, or interest in property or cloud upon title.
(b) “Property” includes real property, and to the extent
applicable, personal property.
760.020. (a) An action may be brought under this chapter to establish title against adverse claims to real or personal property or any interest therein.
(b) An action may be brought under this chapter by parties to an agreement entered into pursuant to Section 6307 or 6357 of the Public Resources Code to confirm the validity of the agreement.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the right of members of the public to bring or participate in actions challenging the validity of agreements entered into pursuant to Section 6307 or 6357 of the Public Resources Code.
760.030. (a) The remedy provided in this chapter is cumulative and not exclusive of any other remedy, form or right of action, or proceeding provided by law for establishing or quieting title to property.
(b) In an action or proceeding in which establishing or quieting title to property is in issue the court in its discretion may, upon motion of any party, require that the issue be resolved pursuant to the provisions of this chapter to the extent practicable.
760.040. (a) The superior court has jurisdiction of actions under this chapter.
(b) The court has complete jurisdiction over the parties to the action and the property described in the complaint and is deemed to have obtained possession and control of the property for the purposes of the action with complete jurisdiction to render the judgment provided for in this chapter.
(c) Nothing in this chapter limits any authority the court may have to grant such equitable relief as may be proper under the circumstances of the case.
760.050. Subject to the power of the court to transfer actions, the proper county for the trial of an action under this chapter is:
(a) Where the subject of the action is real property or real and personal property, the county in which the real property, or some part thereof, is located.
(b) Where the subject of the action is personal property, the county in which the personal property is principally located at the commencement of the action or in which the defendants, or any of them, reside at the commencement of the action.
760.060. The statutes and rules governing practice in civil actions generally apply to actions under this chapter except where they are inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter.
CALIFORNIA QUIET TITLE LAW SUMMARY
So, in short, the main purpose of a quiet title action is to establish title against adverse claims to real property or personal property. As set forth above, the remedy of quiet title can be combined with other causes of action or other remedies. And, in any action or proceeding in which establishing or quieting title to property is in issue, the court may, in its discretion and on the motion of any party, require that the issue be resolved pursuant to the California Code Of Civil Procedure provisions relating to quiet title actions.
In regards to proper jurisdiction for a California quiet title lawsuit, the quiet title lawsuit must be brought in the superior court of the county where the real property is located. Once the Quiet Title Action is before the court, the court has complete power to determine title issues.
NOTE: SECTION 761.020-761.040 OF THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SETS FORTH SPECIFIC PLEADING REQUIREMENTS AND LIS PENDES RULES WHEN FILING A QUIET TITLE LAWSUIT. THE RULES CAN BE FOUND HERE:
761.010. (a) An action under this chapter is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.
(b) Immediately upon commencement of the action, the plaintiff shall file a notice of the pendency (THIS IS THE “LIS PENDENS” WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS IN OTHER BLOG ARTICLES) of the action in the office of the county recorder of each county in which any real property described in the complaint is located.
LIS PENDENS NOTE (NOW CALLED THE NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF ACTION): This lis pendens puts other parties on notice of your claim to real property and usually stops anyone from buying or selling your real property while the lawsuit is pending. The lis pendens can later be removed, or dissolved by Court order. Please note, there are very specific requirements for filing a lis pendens that you will need to be familiar with (google “vondran lis pendens” for more information).
761.020. The complaint shall be verified and shall include all of the following:
(a) A description of the property that is the subject of the action. In the case of tangible personal property, the description shall include its usual location. In the case of real property, the description shall include both its legal description and its street address or common designation, if any.
(b) The title of the plaintiff as to which a determination under this chapter is sought and the basis of the title. If the title is based upon adverse possession, the complaint shall allege the specific facts constituting the adverse possession.
(c) The adverse claims to the title of the plaintiff against which a determination is sought.
(d) The date as of which the determination is sought. If the determination is sought as of a date other than the date the complaint is filed, the complaint shall include a statement of the reasons why a determination as of that date is sought.
(e) A prayer for the determination of the title of the plaintiff against the adverse claims.
REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEFENDANTS ANSWER TO A CALIFORNIA QUIET TITLE LAWSUIT:
761.030. (a) The answer shall be verified and shall set forth:
(1) Any claim the defendant has.
(2) Any facts tending to controvert such material allegations of the complaint as the defendant does not wish to be taken as true.
(3) A statement of any new matter constituting a defense.
(b) If the defendant disclaims in the answer any claim, or suffers judgment to be taken without answer, the plaintiff shall not recover costs.
761.040. (a) The defendant may by cross-complaint seek affirmative relief in the action.
(b) If the defendant seeks a determination of title as of a date other than the date specified in the complaint, the cross-complaint shall include the date and a statement of the reasons why a determination as of that date is sought.
PARTIES IN A CALIFORNIA QUIET TITLE ACTION (PARTY ISSUES).
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 762.010-762.090 states that the when filing the Quiet Title Lawsuit, the Plaintiff must name as defendants all persons known or unknown claiming an interest in the property and other rules regarding proper parties in a quiet title action are addressed in these sections.
Here are those Sections:
762.010. The plaintiff shall name as defendants in the action the persons having adverse claims to the title of the plaintiff against which a determination is sought.
762.020. (a) If the name of a person required to be named as a defendant is not known to the plaintiff, the plaintiff shall so state in the complaint and shall name as parties all persons unknown in the manner provided in Section 762.060.
(b) If the claim or the share or quantity of the claim of a person required to be named as a defendant is unknown, uncertain, or contingent, the plaintiff shall so state in the complaint. If the lack of knowledge, uncertainty, or contingency is caused by a transfer to an unborn or un-ascertained person or class member, or by a transfer in the form of a contingent remainder, vested remainder subject to defeasance, executory interest, or similar disposition, the plaintiff shall also state in the complaint, so far as is known to the plaintiff, the name, age, and legal disability (if any) of the person in being who would be entitled to the claim had the contingency upon which the claim depends occurred prior to the commencement of the action.
762.030. (a) If a person required to be named as a defendant is dead and the plaintiff knows of a personal representative, the plaintiff shall join the personal representative as a defendant.
(b) If a person required to be named as a defendant is dead, or is believed by the plaintiff to be dead, and the plaintiff knows of no personal representative:
(1) The plaintiff shall state these facts in an affidavit filed with the complaint.
(2) Where it is stated in the affidavit that such person is dead, the plaintiff may join as defendants “the testate and intestate
successors of ____ (naming the deceased person), deceased, and all persons claiming by, through, or under such decedent,” naming them in that manner.
(3) Where it is stated in the affidavit that such person is believed to be dead, the plaintiff may join the person as a defendant, and may also join “the testate and intestate successors of ____ (naming the person) believed to be deceased, and all persons claiming by, through, or under such person,” naming them in that manner.
762.040. The court upon its own motion may, and upon motion of any party shall, make such orders as appear appropriate:
(a) For joinder of such additional parties as are necessary or proper.
(b) Requiring the plaintiff to procure a title report and designate a place where it shall be kept for inspection, use, and copying by the parties.
762.050. Any person who has a claim to the property described in the complaint may appear in the proceeding. Whether or not the person is named as a defendant in the complaint, the person shall appear as a defendant.
762.060. (a) In addition to the persons required to be named as defendants in the action, the plaintiff may name as defendants “all persons unknown, claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the property described in the complaint adverse to plaintiff’s title, or any cloud upon plaintiff’s title thereto,” naming them in that manner.
(b) In an action under this section, the plaintiff shall name as defendants the persons having adverse claims that are of record or known to the plaintiff or reasonably apparent from an inspection of the property.
(c) If the plaintiff admits the validity of any adverse claim, the complaint shall so state.
762.070. A person named and served as an unknown defendant has the same rights as are provided by law in cases of all other defendants named and served, and the action shall proceed against unknown defendants in the same manner as against other defendants named and served, and with the same effect.
762.080. The court upon its own motion may, and upon motion of any party shall, make such orders for appointment of guardians ad litem as appear necessary to protect the interest of any party.
762.090. (a) The state may be joined as a party to an action under this chapter.
(b) This section does not constitute a change in, but is
declaratory of, existing law.
WHO BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN A CALIFORNIA QUIET TITLE ACTION? THE ANSWER WILL USUALLY DEPEND ON WHETHER DEFENDANT HOLDS LEGAL TITLE OR WHETHER TITLE IS DISPUTED.
In a California Quiet Title lawsuit (WHERE LEGAL TITLE VESTS IN DEFENDANTS), the Plaintiff must bear the burden of proof (this is the case in most civil lawsuits). The normal burden of proof in a civil lawsuit is “preponderance of the evidence.” However, in a Quiet Title action, the standard of proof is higher and the Plaintiff must establish its right to title by “CLEAR AND CONVINCING” proof. See California Evidence Code Section 662 which discusses the burden of proof in a Quiet Title case:
662. The owner of the legal title to property is presumed to be the owner of the full beneficial title. This presumption may be rebutted only by clear and convincing proof.
IF TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY IS “DISPUTED” (AS OPPOSED TO HAVING LEGAL TITLE HELD BY A DEFENDANT) THEN THE TYPICAL “PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE” STANDARD WILL APPLY.
A JUDGEMENT IN A QUIET TITLE ACTION IS NORMALLY CONCLUSIVE ON ALL PARTIES KNOWN OR UNKNOWN WHO WERE PARTIES TO THE ACTION.
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 764.030 States:
764.030. The judgment in the action is binding and conclusive on all of the following persons, regardless of any legal disability:
(a) All persons known and unknown who were parties to the action and who have any claim to the property, whether present or future, vested or contingent, legal or equitable, several or undivided. Except as provided in Section 764.045, all persons who were not parties to the action and who have any claim to the property which was not of record at the time the lis pendens was filed or, if none was filed, at the time the judgment was recorded.
HOWEVER, A QUIET TITLE ACTION WILL NOT NORMALLY AFFECT TITLE TO PARTIES WHO WERE NOT A PARTY TO THE ACTION IF THEIR CLAIM WAS KNOWN, OR REASONABLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN KNOWN.
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 764.045 states:
764.045. Except to the extent provided in Section 1908, the judgment does not affect a claim in the property or part thereof of any person who was not a party to the action if any of the following conditions is satisfied:
(a) The claim was of record at the time the lis pendens was filed or, if none was filed, at the time the judgment was recorded.
(b) The claim was actually known to the plaintiff or would have been reasonably apparent from an inspection of the property at the time the lis pendens was filed or, if none was filed, at the time the judgment was entered. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to impair the rights of a bona fide purchaser or encumbrancer for value dealing with the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s successors in interest.
THERE ARE NO DEFAULT JUDGMENTS – EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED IN A QUIET TITLE LAWSUIT:
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 764.010 States:
764.010. The court shall examine into and determine the plaintiff’s title against the claims of all the defendants. The court shall not enter judgment by default but shall in all cases require evidence of plaintiff’s title and hear such evidence as may be offered respecting the claims of any of the defendants, other than claims the validity of which is admitted by the plaintiff in the complaint. The court shall render judgment in accordance with the evidence and the law.
Quiet Title Case: Mangindin v. Washington Mutual Bank, 637 F. Supp.2d 700, (N.D. Cal.) 2009.
QUIET TITLE IN THE FORECLOSURE CONTEXT: TENDER ISSUES
Under California law, a plaintiff seeking to quiet title in the face of a foreclosure must allege tender or an offer of tender of the amount borrowed. See Arnolds Management Corp v. Eischen, 158 Cal.App.3d 575, 578, 205 Cal.Rptr. 15 (1984). This may make Quiet Title a more difficult proposition in a foreclosure case.
QUICK SUMMARY OF CALIFORNIA QUIET TITLE LAW
(1) THE COMPLAINT AND ANSWER TO A QUIET TITLE ACTION MUST BE VERIFIED (ESSENTIALLY MEANING MADE UNDER OATH) AND NAME ALL KNOWN OR UNKNOWN PARTIES CLAIMING AN INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY.
(2) THE QUIET TITLE COMPLAINT MUST DESCRIBE THE PROPERTY WITH A LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMON ADDRESS DESCRIPTION.
(3) PLAINTIFF IN A CALIFORNIA QUIET TITLE ACTION MUST SET FORTH WHAT THE ADVERSE CLAIMS (SETTING FORTH SPECIFIC FACTS) ARE AND WHAT TYPE OF DETERMINATION IS SOUGHT.
(4) QUIET TITLE ACTION MUST SET FORTH THE DATE THE DETERMINATION IS SOUGHT AND A PRAYER FOR RELIEF TO DETERMINE PLAINTIFF’S TITLE AGAINST THE ADVERSE CLAIMS.
(5) A QUIET TITLE LAWSUIT MUST BE BROUGHT IN THE PROPER COUNTY.
(6) ANY PERSON WHO CLAIMS AN ADVERSE INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY MAY JOIN IN THE LAWSUIT EVEN IF THEY WERE NOT NAMED AS A A DEFENDANT.
(7) A QUIET TITLE LAWSUIT REQUIRES PROPER USE OF THE LIS PENDENS PROCEDURE (NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF ACTION).
(8) IN A QUIET TITLE ACTION, THE OWNER OF LEGAL TITLE (CHECK THE TITLE REPORT) IS PRESUMED TO BE THE OWNER, AND THIS CAN ONLY BE REBUTTED BY A SHOWING OF CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY.
(9) GENERALLY SPEAKING, THERE ARE NO JURY TRIALS IN A QUIET TITLE ACTION AS THESE ACTIONS ARE “EQUITABLE” IN NATURE (NOT SEEKING MONEY DAMAGES) SO THE COURT WILL DECIDE PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM AND EQUITABLE DEFENSES MAY BE ASSERTED BY OPPOSING PARTIES. THE EXCEPTION WOULD BE IF PLAINTIFF IS OUT OF POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY AND IS FILING THE QUIET TITLE ACTION TO REGAIN POSSESSION – IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE CLAIM MAY BE DEEMED “LEGAL” IN NATURE AND A JURY TRIAL MAY BE REQUESTED. SEE MEDEIROS V. MEDEIROS, 177 CAL APP. 2d 69, (1960). THE PRUDENT PRACTICE IS TO ALWAYS REQUEST A JURY TRIAL WHEN FILING A PLEADING IF THAT IS WHAT YOU WANT. RAISE IT OR WAIVE IT IS THE GENERAL RULE.
(10) GENERALLY SPEAKING, A JUDGMENT IN A QUIET TITLE LAWSUIT IS CONCLUSIVE AND BINDING ON ALL PARTIES TO THE LITIGATION, BUT MAY NOT BE BINDING ON PARTIES NOT INVOLVED IN THE QUIET TITLE LAWSUIT BUT WHOS CLAIMS WERE KNOWN OR REASONABLY APPARENT. THERE ARE NO DEFAULT JUDGMENTS – CLEAR EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED.
(11) IN A QUIET TITLE ACTION IN THE FORECLOSURE OF A RESIDENCE, THE COURT MAY REQUIRE THE PLAINTIFF TO “DO EQUITY” OR TENDER AMOUNTS OWED OR IN ARREARS OR PAY THE ENTIRE BALANCE. A PARTY CANNOT USUALLY “GET EQUITY” IF THEY DON’T “DO EQUITY”.
Visit our other websites at www.RescindMyLoan.net / www.VondranLegal.com / www.OptionArmLawyer.com / www.BKAttorneyS.net / www.ForeclosureDefenseResourceCenter.com /www.ProduceTheNoteAttorney.com / www.TrialPlanFraud.com / www.LoanModificationRipoff.net / www.LoanModSolutions.net / www.VondranLaw.com / www.LoanModLegal.com (the Southern California Foreclosure Defense Radio Show).
KEYWORDS: CALIFORNIA LIS PENDENS / PENDENCY OF ACTION / QUIET TITLE ACTION / CALIFORNIA QUIET TITLE LAWSUIT / BURDEN OF PROOF IN QUIET TITLE CASE / QUIET TITLE IN FORECLOSURE CASE / LAWSUIT TO QUIET TITLE / CALIFORNIA FORECLOSURE DEFENSE LAWYER / PHOENIX FORECLOSURE LAWYER.
ATTORNEY FEES - IN MOST CASES WE CHARGE AN UP-FRONT RETAINER AND HOURY FEE. IN SOME CASES, HOWEVER, WE MAY BE ABLE TO CHARGE A CONTINGENCY FEE OR FLAT RATE FEE. FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT CONTINGENCY FEES YOU CAN CHECK US OUT AT WWW.CONTINGENCYCASE.COM AN ONLINE DATABASE OF CONTINGENCY LAWYERS WHO MAY AGREE TO TAKE YOUR CASE ON A CONTINGENCY FEE BASIS.
THIS IS AN ADVERTISEMENT AND COMMUNICATION PURSUANT TO STATE BAR RULES. COPYRIGHT 2010 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. WE ONLY SEEK TO SOLICIT CLIENTS IN ARIZONA AND CALIFORNIA WHERE THE LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN C. VONDRAN IS LICENSED TO PRACTICE LAW.
It has been a while since we showcased the MOD SCAMMER of the MONTH. But we have a new one for you. Mr. Jason Adelman who resides in the State of Nevada and works for a company calledCreative Day Concepts. Guy coaches a little league team in Nevada area. We have contacted his little league district to put them on notice of their potential liability in having this low-life handing around.
Jason Adelmann is the CLASSIC LOAN MODIFICATION SCAMMER. Warning to NEVADA and CALIFORNIA HOMEOWNERS – he wants your money and cares less about compliance with state laws dealing with loan modification. Jason Adelman, we are hereby calling you out.
Once my office caught up with this loan modification ripoff artsist he came clean and admitted his wrongdoing. In fact, he stated he had no idea what the California Laws for loan modification are and he was hoping that his attorney “partner” would back him and would have compliance issues dealt with. One problem, when I asked him who his “attorney-backed” Nevada Attorney was, he went limp and silent. He was afraid to speak because he knew he got his hand caught in the non-compliance cookie jar. In fact, it is doubtful he has a lawyer backing him. Probably part of his loan mod scam.
After a conversation or two he agreed he was in the wrong and promised to correct his errant ways and pay back my California loan modification client. Here is the loan mod scam agreement he promised to sign.
MUTUAL RELEASE AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
RE: Mr. XXXXXXXXXX Plaintiff v. Creative Day Concepts, Mr. Jason Adelman (“Settling Defendants”)
WHEREAS, Mr. XXXXXXXXXXXX (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”), have asserted a claim against Creative Day Concepts, Mr. Jason Adelman and any other related entity including his “attorney-backed” partner who shall remain nameless (hereinafter “Settling Defendants”) in regard to loan modification services. Plaintiff and Settling Defendants Collectively may be referred to as “the Parties.”
WHEREAS, Settling Defendants deny any liability in connection with the alleged claims; and warrant that no legal action is currently pending against the Plaintiff;
WHEREAS, for valuable consideration the Parties to this Agreement wish to reach a full and final settlement of all matters and causes of action arising out of the facts, complaints, and claims between the Parties;
WHEREAS, this Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release shall be deemed confidential pursuant to the California rules of Evidence and shall not be admissible in any Court or other legal proceeding for any purpose whatsoever;
THEREFORE, the parties agree to mutually settle the above action and dispute and the Parties agree to mutually release and forever discharge each-other, including forever discharging all claims against Settling Defendants, including, but not limited to Paul Pope.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF MUTUAL RELEASE AND SETTLEMENT:
1. Payment to Plaintiff: In consideration for the agreement to dismiss all claims and causes of action relating to this incident, Plaintiff agrees to accept the total sum of $3,200.00 (THREE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS) WHICH SHALL BE PAID IN FULL AND WHICH SETTLEMENT SHALL BE DEEMED COMPLETE UPON SUCH FUNDS CLEARING ATTORNEYS BANK ACCOUNT.
Such payment shall be made payable to The Law Offices of Steven C. Vondran, Esq., Client Trust Account and shall be sent to The Law Offices of Steven C. Vondran, 2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 700, Phoenix, AZ 85016. All payments owed under this Agreement shall be addressed and made payable as described in this section. This offer to settle shall expire November 30, 2009 at 5pm. Upon receipt and confirmation of funds, Plaintiff agrees to maintain all information in connection with the case and settlement agreement as confidential.
2. Mutual Release:
(A) As consideration for this Settlement, the Parties, their agents, spouses, heirs, employees, executors, administrators and assigns do hereby fully release and discharge each other, from and against any and all suits, demands, and/or liabilities of whatever kind or natures, including, but not limited to any liability in any way connected with and/or arising from the events and/or consequences alleged between the Parties and/or described by way of any Complaint and/or answer thereto.
The Parties agree to fully, completely, irrevocably, and mutually release each-other from any and all claims relating to this incident (and further agree to release Plaintiffs attorney from any and all legal action of any kind), except in the event any of the settling defendants (as set forth herein), institutes any type of legal action or preceding against the Plaintiff(s) or Plaintiff’s attorney, which relates to any of the claims or assertions referenced or covered herein, in which case this agreement shall become null and void and Plaintiff may file or re-institute any lawsuit against any or all the parties.
(B) Civil Code Section 1542 Waiver: In releasing each of the parties hereto as above described, all parties waive all rights described in Civil of the State of California, Section 1542, which reads as follows:
“A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO THE CLAIMS WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN ITS FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED THE SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR.”
The Parties understand the above-quoted provisions of the California Civil Code Section 1542 and knowingly enter into this waiver because it is their intention in executing this release to discharge each other for all claims for relief, whether known or unknown that may be asserted by each of them. The Parties acknowledge and agree that this waiver is an essential and material term of this Release and the release provisions contained herein and that without such waiver the settlement described in this release would not have been entered into.
(C) This release shall not release any party to this Agreement from performance of his obligations under this Settlement Agreement.
3. No Promise or Inducement: No promise or inducement has been made other than those specifically set forth in this Settlement Agreement. This Settlement Agreement is executed by the Parties to this Agreement without reliance on any representations of the Parties or their representatives concerning the nature, extent of damages, or legal liability, and after full review by the legal counsel for each party.
4. Counterparts: The parties to this Agreement may execute this Agreement in two or more counterparts, which shall, in aggregate, be signed by all the parties, and each counterpart shall be deemed an original instrument as against any party who signed it.
5 Construction: This release shall not be construed against the party preparing it, but shall be construed as if all parties jointly prepared this release and any uncertainty and ambiguity shall not be interpreted against any one party. All words and terms shall be given their ordinary and plain meaning. Titles or captions contained in this full release are inserted only as a matter of convenience and fore reference and in no way define, limit, extend, or describe the scope of the release or the intent of any provisions hereof.
(A) California Law Applies: this release is to be performed in California, and be interpreted, enforced and governed by and under the laws of the State of California regardless of any choice of law conflicts.
6. Modification: The release shall not be modified by any party by oral representation made before or after the execution of this release. All modifications must be in writing and signed by parties.
7. Further Documents: The parties shall execute and deliver all documents and perform all further acts that may be reasonably necessary to effectuate the provisions of this release.
8. Advise of Counsel: Each party acknowledges that it has been represented by counsel of its own choice (or had the opportunity for such legal review and advice) in the negotiations leading up to the execution of this release and that its representative has read this release and has had it fully explained to him, her or it, by his, her or its, counsel and having no objections hereby freely executes such.
(A) Attorney Fees and Costs: Each party hereto shall bear its own attorney fees and costs arising from the actions of their own counsel in connection with this settlement and mutual release of all claims.
9. Entire Agreement: This release contains the entire agreement between the signatories hereto. The terms of this release are contractual and not mere recital. This release is executed without reliance upon any representation by any person concerning the nature or extent of damages or legal liability therefore, and the undersigned have carefully read and understand the contents of this release and sign the same as their own free act.
(A) Severability: In the event any of the provisions of this release are deemed to be invalid and unenforceable, those provisions shall be severable from the remainder of the release, and shall not cause the invalidity or unenforceability of the balance of this release.
10. Authority to Settle: By signing below, Mr. Jason Adelman (on behalf of “Settling Defendants”) represents he has authority to enter into this agreement on behalf of all “Settling Defendants.”
The foregoing hereby read, understood, and agreed by (execution by both parties is required to effectuate settlement under this agreement):
DATED: ____________________, 2009 ____________________________________
Mr. XXXXXXX, Plaintiff
DATED: ____________________, 2009 ____________________________________
Mr. Jason Adelman, for Defendants
Only one problem, Jason Adelmann is the typical loan mod scammer in that he refuses to follow through with what he says he will do (just like all the loan modification lies he tells). The wrost part is he likes to coach little leaguers in Nevada and what a shame it is if your Clients are drafted by this loan modification scam artist.
Rest assured, once we find his “attorney-backed” partner we will be calling him out and suing him too.
Suffice it to say for now, this is chapter one. Jason Adelman of Creative Concepts wants to skate free continuing his career of lies of non-compliance in the State of California. But we will not stop until justice is served. People like Jaspn Adelmann of Creative Concepts will be brought to justice and exposed as the lying, cheating, scammer that he is.
This foreclosure crises has brought out the loan modification bozos like Jason Adelmann who have to be stopped before their callous ways injure more homeowners. Mr. Jason Adelman is not afraid to lie to collect his fee. California and Arizona homeowners are warned to be on the lookout for Creative Day Concepts and Mr. Jason Adelman who refuses to acknowledge California loan modification laws in his pursuit of profits.
Jason Adelman Updates
(1) It appears his company is called Creative Day Concepts AKA – No Stress Foreclosure AKA – Department of Foreclosure Prevention AKA – Utah Financial. Ever wonder why a company would have so many names?
(2) The addresses we have been able to obtain for Jason Adelman:
Address – 4900 California Avenue Tower B-210
Bakersfield, CA 93309
5330 Office Center Court, Suite 59
Bakersfield, CA 93309
5201 California Avenue, Suite 380
Bakersfield, CA 93309
Nevada – Creative Day Concepts
4760 South Pecos Road, Suite 103
Las Vegas, Nevada 89121
Home – 15626 Sammie Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93314
1000 Norris Road
Bakersfield, CA 93308
Phone numbers we have been able to obtain via public sources
- 3. It appears Jason Aldeman is also a youth football coach – Golden Empire Youth Football
Should a guy who promises loan modifications, principal reduction and money-back guarantees (who does not have the properly approved advanced fee agreement, is not a real estate broker, and who on information and belief accepted at least one notice of default case in violation of the California Foreclosure Consultant Act (and who agrees to a settlement and then disappears) be permitted to act as a mentor and coach for youth in the community? If My kids played in the Golden Empire Youth Football league, I would call Ron White (see his number below) and complain that I do not want a guy who blatantly violates the law in the name of profits, and who has obvious issues being truthful and honing up for his wrong-doing coaching my kids in a youth football league. Make your voice be known, help put a loan mod scammer to a halt.
5630 District #123
Bakersfield, CA 93313
Ron White – Director of Youth Football at Golden Empire Youth Football.
(4) It appears Jason Adelman’s wife’s name is Jennifer Lynn Adelman – She is the stated Secretary of Creative Day Concepts, Inc. a Nevada Corporation. It is not clear what role she plays, if any, in aiding, abetting, supporting and encouraging Mr. Jason Aldeman.
(5) Jason Aldeman’s Brother appears to be Mark Adelman – who is the Treasurer of Creative Day Concepts, Inc. – On information and belief he lives in the San Diego area. Again, it is not clear to what degree, if any, Mark Aldeman is involved in aiding, abetting, supporting and encouraging Mr. Jason Aldeman in his foreclosure defense business.
HERE ARE SOME OF THE VIOLATION WE WILL BE ALLEGING AGAINST JASON ADELMAN IN A CIVIL LAWSUIT:
(1) FRAUD AND DECEPTION: Offering 100% money back guarantees with no intent to honor such;
(2) FALSE ADVERTISING / 17200: JASON ALDEMAN Claims he is a “Loan Modification Specialist” (this is on his business card that he uses to illegally generate business in California) and it appears he claims he has been doing this foreclosure work for years.
(3) VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA FORECLOSURE DEFENSE LAW: On information and belief, Mr. Aldeman has taken clients that have a Notice of Default in the State of California. Not being exempted under the law, he is in violation of the foreclosure defense law which carries stiff penalties which we plan to pursue.
If you have been ripped off or scammed by Mr. Jason Adelman, Creative Day Concepts, No Stress foreclosure or Department of Foreclosure Prevention, please contact our office to discuss a class action lawsuit.
Jason Adelman’s email address is firstname.lastname@example.org . If you were scammed by Jason Adelman and Creative Day Concepts, email him and ask him for a copy of your loan modification file so we can review your case.
Oh, and one last development, Jason Aldeman now appears to be running “New Life Investing” in Bakersfield. Don’t ask me how this relates to his expertise in loan modifications – also you might want to check and see if he has the proper licensing and credentials, if one is needed. His number at New Life Investing is (661) 323-5151.
PREDATORY LENDING MEETS ELDER ABUSE: ARE LENDERS PERMITTED TO FORECLOSE ON PREDATORY OPTION ARM LOANS AND OTHER COMPLICATED FINANCIAL PRODICTS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA?
The following article discusses general legal information on the topic of elder abuse and foreclosure defense. This article contains general legal information and not specific legal advice. In addition, the article, cases, and analysis may not be complete and comprehensive or up-to-date. Steve Vondran, Esq. is licensed to practice law in California and Arizona. He practices law in the area of Real Estate, Bankruptcy, and Foreclosure Defense. He can be reached at email@example.com.
INTRODUCTION TO ELDER ABUSE AND PREDATORY LENDING
The elderly population (over 65 years of age) is one of the fastest growing segments of society. Medical science is helping people live longer, more productive lives. However, it is fairly common knowledge that as each of us grow older, whether we like it or not, we lose some of our mental and physical capacities.
In the context of mortgage loans, it may mean that elderly persons become less able to comprehend sophisticated financial products such as Option Arm Loans (pay options ARM / “pick-a-pay loans) and Reverse Mortgages and other adjustable rate mortgage and interest-only loan products that differ from the traditional 30 year fixed rate mortgage most California homeowners grew up on.
The California Attorney General’s Office has issued a guide for “financial elder abuse.” In this guide, (which you can find at the Attorney General website), they state:
“Financial elder abuse is the theft of money or property from an elder….it can be as simple as taking money from a wallet and as complex as manipulating a victim into turning over property to an abuser.”
The publication goes on to state: “This form of abuse can be devastating because an elder victim’s life savings can disappear in the blink of an eye, leaving them unable to provide for their needs and afraid of what an uncertain tomorrow will bring.”
The guide discusses “recognizing the warning signs” and states: “while financial elder abuse can take many forms, the most widespread abuses include telemarketing fraud, identity theft, predatory lending, and home improvement and estate planning scams.” Telemarketing fraud could come in the form of dealing with a loan broker over the telephone who attempts to coerce an elderly homeowner into believing a certain type of loan (ex. An Option Arm Loan) is the best for the homeowner (when in fact the borrower has no ability to repay a loan that builds negative amortization and which is likely to “recast” in the near future), or falsely trumping up a homeowners income in order to ensure a loan is funded and the broker is paid.
In the section discussing “Predatory Lending” the publication states:
“More than 80% of Americans aged 50 and older are homeowners. Elders are often the target of unscrupulous lenders who pressure them into high-interest rate loans that they may not be able to repay. Older homeowners are often persuaded to borrow money through home equity loans for home repairs, debt consolidation, or to pay health care costs. These loans are sold as “miracle financial cure,” and homeowners are devastated to find out they cannot afford to pay off the loans, and as a result, may lose their home. Often these loans are packed with excessive fees, costly credit insurance, pre-payment penalties, and balloon payments.”
Even California Banker’s Association (an association of California Banker’s) discusses the concept of elder financial abuse on its website – www.calbankers.com – by stating “Common elder abuse scenarios – obtaining money or property by undue influence, misrepresentation, or fraud….” This suggests that even Banker’s in California realize that elder abuse is “common” and that it is wrongful. But what is to be done about it? What is to be done when lenders and brokers advise and “steer” and influence elder homeowners into entering into loan transactions with sophisticated non-traditional loan products and artificially falsify income documentation because they know there is no true ability to repay the loan, much less qualify for it in the first place.
This is precisely the scenario in many cases that we see in our role as foreclosure defense counsel for elderly homeowners facing foreclosure or facing eviction following foreclosure. It is against this back-drop that we must act, to what extent will the California Courts exercise their inherent equitable power to protect elderly homeowners (over 65 years of age at the signing of the loan documents or an elder dependent adult) where the loan product is seen to be the product of fraud or deception (such as steering, false trumping of income, intentional misrepresentations, or other fraudulent and deceptive business practices) perpetrated by predatory brokers, lenders and loan servicers who seek profit over fiduciary duty?
CALIFORNIA ELDER ABUSE LAW
•A. California Elder Abuse Statute
WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE
15600. (a) The Legislature recognizes that elders and dependent
adults may be subjected to abuse, neglect, or abandonment and that
this state has a responsibility to protect these persons.
(b) The Legislature further recognizes that a significant number
of these persons are elderly. The Legislature desires to direct
special attention to the needs and problems of elderly persons,
recognizing that these persons constitute a significant and
identifiable segment of the population and that they are more subject
to risks of abuse, neglect, and abandonment.
(c) The Legislature further recognizes that a significant number
of these persons have developmental disabilities and that mental and
verbal limitations often leave them vulnerable to abuse and incapable
of asking for help and protection.
(d) The Legislature recognizes that most elders and dependent
adults who are at the greatest risk of abuse, neglect, or abandonment
by their families or caretakers suffer physical impairments and
other poor health that place them in a dependent and vulnerable
(e) The Legislature further recognizes that factors which
contribute to abuse, neglect, or abandonment of elders and dependent
adults are economic instability of the family, resentment of
caretaker responsibilities, stress on the caretaker, and abuse by the
caretaker of drugs or alcohol.
(f) The Legislature declares that this state shall foster and
promote community services for the economic, social, and personal
well-being of its citizens in order to protect those persons
described in this section.
(g) The Legislature further declares that uniform state
guidelines, which specify when county adult protective service
agencies are to investigate allegations of abuse of elders and
dependent adults and the appropriate role of local law enforcement is
necessary in order to ensure that a minimum level of protection is
provided to elders and dependent adults in each county.
(h) The Legislature further finds and declares that infirm elderly
persons and dependent adults are a disadvantaged class, that cases
of abuse of these persons are seldom prosecuted as criminal matters,
and few civil cases are brought in connection with this abuse due to
problems of proof, court delays, and the lack of incentives to
prosecute these suits.
(i) Therefore, it is the intent of the Legislature in enacting
this chapter to provide that adult protective services agencies,
local long-term care ombudsman programs, and local law enforcement
agencies shall receive referrals or complaints from public or private
agencies, from any mandated reporter submitting reports pursuant to
Section 15630, or from any other source having reasonable cause to
know that the welfare of an elder or dependent adult is endangered,
and shall take any actions considered necessary to protect the elder
or dependent adult and correct the situation and ensure the
(j) It is the further intent of the Legislature in adding Article
8.5 (commencing with Section 15657) to this chapter to enable
interested persons to engage attorneys to take up the cause of abused
elderly persons and dependent adults.
15610.07. “Abuse of an elder or a dependent adult” means either of
(a) Physical abuse, neglect, financial abuse, abandonment,
isolation, abduction, or other treatment with resulting physical harm
or pain or mental suffering.
15610.23. (a) “Dependent adult” means any person between the ages
of 18 and 64 years who resides in this state and who has physical or
mental limitations that restrict his or her ability to carry out
normal activities or to protect his or her rights, including, but not
limited to, persons who have physical or developmental disabilities,
or whose physical or mental abilities have diminished because of
15610.25. “Developmentally disabled person” means a person with a
developmental disability specified by or as described in subdivision
(a) of Section 4512.
15610.27. “Elder” means any person residing in this state, 65 years
of age or older.
15610.30. (a) “Financial abuse” of an elder or dependent adult
occurs when a person or entity does any of the following:
(1) Takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains real or
personal property of an elder or dependent adult for a wrongful use
or with intent to defraud, or both.
(2) Assists in taking, secreting, appropriating, obtaining, or
retaining real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult
for a wrongful use or with intent to defraud, or both.
(3) Takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains, or assists
in taking, secreting, appropriating, obtaining, or retaining, real
or personal property of an elder or dependent adult by undue
influence, as defined in Section 1575 of the Civil Code.
(b) A person or entity shall be deemed to have taken, secreted,
appropriated, obtained, or retained property for a wrongful use if,
among other things, the person or entity takes, secretes,
appropriates, obtains, or retains the property and the person or
entity knew or should have known that this conduct is likely to be
harmful to the elder or dependent adult.
(c) For purposes of this section, a person or entity takes,
secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains real or personal property
when an elder or dependent adult is deprived of any property right,
including by means of an agreement, donative transfer, or
testamentary bequest, regardless of whether the property is held
directly or by a representative of an elder or dependent adult.
UNDUE INFLUENCE FOR ELDER ABUSES PURPOSES: (AS REFERENCED ABOVE)
1575. Undue influence consists:
1. In the use, by one in whom a confidence is reposed by another,
or who holds a real or apparent authority over him, of such
confidence or authority for the purpose of obtaining an unfair
advantage over him;
2. In taking an unfair advantage of another’s weakness of mind;
3. In taking a grossly oppressive and unfair advantage of another’s
necessities or distress.
WRIT OF ATTACHMENT
15657.01. Notwithstanding Section 483.010 (SEE BELOW) of the Code of Civil
Procedure, an attachment may be issued in any action for damages
pursuant to Section 15657.5 for financial abuse of an elder or
dependent adult, as defined in Section 15610.30. The other provisions
of the Code of Civil Procedure not inconsistent with this article
shall govern the issuance of an attachment pursuant to this section.
In an application for a writ of attachment, the claimant shall refer
to this section. An attachment may be issued pursuant to this section
whether or not other forms of relief are demanded.
483.010. (a) Except as otherwise provided by statute, an attachment
may be issued only in an action on a claim or claims for money, each
of which is based upon a contract, express or implied, where the
total amount of the claim or claims is a fixed or readily
ascertainable amount not less than five hundred dollars ($500)
exclusive of costs, interest, and attorney’s fees.
(b) An attachment may not be issued on a claim which is secured by
any interest in real property arising from agreement, statute, or
other rule of law (including any mortgage or deed of trust of realty
and any statutory, common law, or equitable lien on real property,
but excluding any security interest in fixtures subject to Division 9
(commencing with Section 9101) of the Commercial Code). However, an
attachment may be issued where the claim was originally so secured
but, without any act of the plaintiff or the person to whom the
security was given, the security has become valueless or has
decreased in value to less than the amount then owing on the claim,
in which event the amount to be secured by the attachment shall not
exceed the lesser of the amount of the decrease or the difference
between the value of the security and the amount then owing on the
(c) If the action is against a defendant who is a natural person,
an attachment may be issued only on a claim which arises out of the
conduct by the defendant of a trade, business, or profession. An
attachment may not be issued on a claim against a defendant who is a
natural person if the claim is based on the sale or lease of
property, a license to use property, the furnishing of services, or
the loan of money where the property sold or leased, or licensed for
use, the services furnished, or the money loaned was used by the
defendant primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.
(d) An attachment may be issued pursuant to this section whether
or not other forms of relief are demanded.
•B. California Elder Abuse Case-Law
•1. Zimmer v. Nawabi, 566 F. Supp.2d 1025, 2008 WL 7123093, (2008). In this case a Plaintiff elderly homeowner (79 years old) filed a lawsuit against a BROKER for elder abuse and a host of other legal claims including breach of fiduciary duty. The gravamen of Plaintiff’s complain was that the Broker lied about the amount of cash-out proceeds that would be tendered to Plaintiff at the close of the loan., and lied about the monthly payment amount and undisclosed Yield Spread Premium (YSP), and other non-disclosure of material terms of the loan. There was also an issue of a fraudulent release of legal claims Defendants fraudulently created and Plaintiff was instructed to sign the loan documents without reading them. This financial elder abuse case was also brought in the context of Plaintiff’s house facing foreclosure.
The Defendants argued there was no financial abuse or elder abuse and sought to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims. The Court failed to dismiss such claims and discussed the claim of Elder Abuse by stating: “Zimmer has a claim for financial elder abuse pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code Section 15657 et seq. against Golden State (the Broker) because Golden State defrauded Zimmer out of the equity in her house while she was over 65 years old. She is entitled to actual and punitive damages and attorney fees.”
In regard to the Elder Abuse cause of action, the Court also stated: “Financial elder abuse is defined in subsection 15610.30(a), which provides: “Financial abuse” of an elder or dependent adult occurs when a person or entity does any of the following: (1) takes, secretes, appropriates or retains real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult to a wrongful use or with intent to defraud or both. (2) Assists in taking, secreting, appropriating or retaining real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult to a wrongful use or with intent to defraud or both.
The court went on to hold that under Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code Section 15610.30(a)(1)-(2), “a person or entity is deemed to have taken, secreted, appropriated or retained property for a wrongful use, if among other things, the the person or entity takes, secretes, appropriates, or retains possession of property in bad faith. Id Section 15610.30(b). A person or entity is deemed to have acted in bad faith if the person or entity knew or should have known that the elder had the right to have the property transferred or made readily available to the elder or to his representative. Id Section 15610.30(b)(1). Lastly, a persona should have known of such right “if, on the basis of the information received by the person or entity or the person or entity’s authorized third party, or both, it is obvious to a reasonable person that the elder has such a right. The Court determined that the Broker’s obtaining of fees (personal property) in the amount of $10,700 was wrongfully obtained under these circumstances indicating false statements and misrepresentations.
The Court in Zimmer also addressed the issue of breach of fiduciary duty. To this issue the court stated: “A mortgage broker breaches his fiduciary duty to borrower under California law if he provides materially misleading and incomplete information regarding the terms of the loan, even if correct terms are in the loan documents and borrower does not read documents.” In addition the Court stated, “when brokering loans for borrower of modest means and limited experience in financial affairs, mortgage broker has a duty of oral disclosure of material loan terms and counseling, which require him to disclose orally the true rate of interest, penalty for late payments, and other material terms of the loan. The court found the elderly homeowner/borrower to be of limited means and lacking financial savvy in financial matters. The court pointed to the elderly homeowner’s “14 years of education.”
The court went on to state that: “Under California law, a mortgage loan broker acts in a fiduciary capacity that “not only imposes on him the duty of acting in the highest good faith toward his principal, but precludes the agent from obtaining any advantage over the principal. The duty obligates brokers to make a full and accurate disclosure of the terms of a loan to borrowers and always act in utmost good faith toward their principles.”
Finally, the Zimmer court addressed “enhanced remedies” under California’s elder abuse statute. “To utilize the Elder Abuse Act’s enhanced remedies, a plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of recklessness, oppression, fraud, or malice in the commission of the abuse. Id Section 15610.30(b)(2). A preponderance of the evidence standard governs a Plaintiff’s ability to recover “all other remedies otherwise provided by law.”
NOTE: Although Zimmer held that a loan broker (as opposed to a lender), who owed the borrower a fiduciary duty, was liable for elder financial abuse, such cause of action may also extend to a “financial institution” or lender who may or may not owe a fiduciary duty as discussed in the Toscano case below.
Note: There are a fair amount of unreported decisions I found dealing with financial elder abuse. To me, it means the Courts may be willing to help out a senior, and yet for various reasons, the court may not want the case reported.
(1) Darone Case (2001 WL 34144398). In this case the Court set forth the requirements to prove a prima facie case for financial elder abuse. Specifically, the Court held:
“Here, then, in order to state a claim of actionable financial abuse…..Plaintiff must allege: (a) that she is an “elder”, (b) that Defendant “took, secreted, appropriated her “money or property”, © that Defendant did so “to a wrongful use or intent to defraud, or both” and (d) that in doing so, Defendant was guilty of “recklessness, oppression, fraud or malice.” The Court held in Darone that there was no fiduciary duty required to state a claim for elder abuse despite defendants contentions.
•2. Toscano v. Ameriquest Mortgage Company (non-reported in F.Supp 2d, 2007 WL 3125023 (E.D. Cal), (2007). In this case, a lender (as opposed to a loan broker) sought to dismiss financial elder abuse claims levied against him. The lender argued they owed no fiduciary duty to the borrower-homeowner, and therefore could not be liable for elder financial abuse. In Toscano, Plaintiff was a 65 year man who spoke only english. Although the loan was negotiated in Spanish, the loan documents were written in English. Defendant advised Plaintiff that the loan at issue (a loan at or below 6.3% interest) was the best loan for Plaintiff. The documents Plaintiff signed had loan terms of 7%. The Court held that a fiduciary relationship was not required to state a claim for financial elder abuse under California law. The Cout also went on to set forth a fiduciary duty test that would create a duty of care, even to lenders and financial institutions (as opposed to brokers) and set forth the test as follows:
“In California, the test for determining whether a financial institution owes a duty of care to the borrower-client involves the balancing of carious factors, among which are: (1) the extent to which the transaction was intended to affect the plaintiff, (2) the foreseeability of harm to him, (3) the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, (4) the closeness of the connection between the defendants conduct and the injury suffered, (5) the moral blame attached to the defendants conduct, and (6) the policy or preventing future harm.” The Court stated “A FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIO CAN ARISE WHERE THE LENDER BECOMES HEAVILY ENTANGLED WITH THE BORROWER.”
Although this case is not citeable, it does given reason to believe that the Courts may so hold this way in any future case, allowing a borrower to bring a claim of financial elder abuse against both a broker and the lender. The Lender could be seen as “assisting” financial elder abuse in these types of cases. More problematic is the case of the “holder in due course” lender who will claim no liability whatsoever for acts of elder abuse that may have been committed at the loan origination stage. See below for more on holder in due course defense.
LEGAL ARGUMENTS SEEKING TO ENJOIN FORECLOSURE OF LOANS ORIGINATED AS THE PRODUCT OF ELDER ABUSE
•1. A LENDER OR LOAN SERVICER SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO FORECLOSE ON A PREDATORY ELDER ABUSE LOAN (THE FRUITS OF THE POISOINOUS TREE) WHERE THE RESULT IS TO LEAVE AN ELDERLY PERSON WITHOUT SAFE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING SOLUTIONS.
It is common knowledge that many loan servicers may prefer foreclosing on homes, rather than modifying loans, due to financial incentives often provided for in various pooling and servicing agreements. These loan servicers likely enjoyed making money off the servicing of these loans that are the product of elder abuse, as well as other predatory loans such as pay option ARM loans (Pick-a-pay negative amortization loans).
This is a strong public policy argument to be made that a Court should step in and exercise its equitable powers to prevent a foreclosure where an elderly California homeowners is about to be foreclosed upon and kicked out of their homes and thrust into an uncertain future.
As discussed below, California Business and Professions Code Section 17203 grants Courts the express authority “as may be necessary to restore to any person in interest, any money or property, real or personal, which may have been acquired by means of such unfair competition.”
Where a violation of the California Elder abuse statutes can be shown, this violation can serve as an underlying violation sufficient for California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 purposes (17200 prohibits acts of unfair competition such as violations of other statutes), and the Court should restore the loan proceeds and loan payments back to Plaintiff – similar to a TILA rescission claim and/or return any foreclosure property back to the homeowner. These are just an example of the types of arguments that could and should be made to the judge.
The other option, of allowing the elderly victim to be “kicked to the curb” should not be permitted even where a subsequent lender claims it is a “holder in due course.” The subsequent lenders “create the marketplace” for these types of loans, and “enjoy the fruits of the poisonous tree.” But for their secondary market purchases of these types of predatory loans, the original lenders (who would be forced to hold their own garbage loans) would not abuse California elderly homeowners who would have direct recourse against them.
•2. THE COURTS SHOULD PROTECT CALIFORNIA ELDERLY HOMEONWERS WHO WERE STEERED INTO COMPLEX AND NON-TRADITIONAL FINANCIAL PRODUCTS AND SHOULD DEMAND THAT THE LENDER OR LOAN SERVICER SHOW GOOD CAUSE BEFORE PURSUING A JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE SALE OR AN UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION (FOLLOWING A FORECLOSURE SALE THAT WAS NOT STOPPED).
As referenced in this memorandum, the State of California protects elderly citizens (those over 65) from fraudulent, oppressive, wrongful and harmful acts that threaten to cause irreparable harm. In the Case of Hernandez v. Stabach, 145 Cal.App.3d 309, 193 Cal. Rptr. 350 (1983), the Court granted a preliminary injunction preventing Defendant (a Landlord accused of retaliatory eviction – an “unfair” and “illegal” act under California Business and Professions Code Section 17200) from filing an unlawful detainer action to evict the non-rent paying tenant until such time as the Defendant Landlord appeared in the Superior Court and obtained leave of Court, (by showing good cause for the eviction) which would permit such unlawful detainer action to be filed. In Stabach, the Court held:
“The challenged portion of the preliminary injunction does not enjoin defendant from initiating unlawful detainer actions against any Plaintiff for nonpayment of rent……or deny him access to the courts. Rather, it requires only that he obtain leave of Superior Court to institute such actions in the municipal court. The injunction does not prohibit the institution of unlawful detainer actions if a showing of good cause is made.”
The Court went on to state:
“California Business and Professions Code Section 17203 provides: Any person performing or proposing to perform an act of unfair competition within this state may be enjoined in any court of competent jurisdiction. THE COURT MAY MAKE SUCH ORDERS OR JUDGEMENTS, INCLUDING THE APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER, AS MAY BE NECESSARY to prevent the use or employment by any person of any practice which constitutes unfair competition, as defined in this chapter, or as may be necessary to restore to any person in interest, any money or property, real or personal, which may have been acquired by means of such unfair competition.”
The Court finalized its opinion by stating:
“We conclude that it was within the court’s inherent equity power and the power conferred upon it by Business and Professions Code Section 17203 to enjoin defendant from evicting or attempting to evict any plaintiff without first obtaining permission from the court. By requiring defendant to seek leave of court, the trial court sought to MONITOR AND PREVENT DEFENDANT’S RETALIATORY ATTEMPTS TO EVICT TENANTS THAT ASSERT THEIR RIGHTS.”
The Stabach case suggests the courts have the express and inherent power to assist victims of elder financial abuse in the State of California. The question remains, will, and to what extent are the Courts willing to go to in order to protect past victims of financial elder abuse in the context of mortgage loans (hidden fees, bait and witch tactics, fraud in the factum, nondisclosure of material loan terms, false and fraudulent trumping of income, steering clients into the wrong financial product etc.)? In each of these scenarios the broker and lender (and subsequent investor of the loan on the secondary market) each enjoy handsome profits, fees and enjoy the fruits of loan origination at the elder homeowners expense and at time, to the loss of their property.
POTENTIAL PITFALLS TO ASSERTING A PREDATORY LENDING CLAIM, IN THE FORM OF AN ELDER ABUSE VIOLATION, IN THE CONTEXT OF A FORECLOSURE DEFENSE CASE
•1. Holder in Due Course: Where a company purchases a loan on the secondary market (i.e. they were not the originator of the loan, they will often claim they are a “holder in due course” and cannot be held liable for fraud, deception, elder abuse, etc. at the origination stage of the loan. This is a good argument in most cases. If a party can successfully assert holder in due course status, there are limited claims a party can make against them. We have addressed the issue of holder in due course status in other blog posts. Just google “vondran holder in due course” and you should be able to find it. Just know this is a potential defense in every predatory lending case, including elder abuse cases. The trick is to show the secondary lender is not a holder in due course and not entitled to HDC protection against liability.
•2. Federal Preemption: As if matters weren’t bad enough, and the chips stacked in favor of the powerful lenders and their mighty lobbiest in D.C., there is another doctrine of law that seeks to aid lenders in battling predatory lending claims like elder abuse. In many cases, the lenders or loan servicers who are named as defendants in lawsuits will claim the Plaintiff-homeowners claims are pre-empted by Federal law. One of these laws is HOLA. Again, we have another article that addresses this issue. Google “vondran pre-emption predatory lending.” Again, for purposes of this article, be aware that there are defenses that will be raised to every predatory lending claim you seek to raise. That is the battle folks.
Elders over 65 are one of the fastest growing segments of our society. People are living longer. That being said, many seniors grew up on 30 year fixed mortgages and are now being enticed with exotic and toxic loan products such as negative amortization loans, reverse mortgages, interest-only products, and adjustable rate mortgage products. Seniors can be particularly vulnerable when dealing with greedy and financially savvy loan brokers and lenders who seek profits over fiduciary duty and a sense of fair play. Someone has to protect seniors who are victimized in the predatory loan process. It is simply unfair to treat seniors in California like every other borrower. Seniors often survive on a fixed income, and if they are forced to the streets by Courts and Financial institutions that could care less about their well-being we can truly admit we are devolving as a society. The California elder abuse law should be used to prevent foreclosure where brokers, lenders, servicers, and other financial institutions don’t play by the rules and abuse seniors who deserve protection. The Courts must take a case-by-case approach and enjoin wrongful foreclosure and return property to the Senior where elder abuse is affirmatively shown to have been perpetrated.
ELDER ABUSE LINKS
National Center on Elder Abuse: www.ncca.aoa.gov
National Clearinghouse on Abuse Later in Life: www.ncall.com
Senior Care Attorney: www.SeniorCareAttorneys.com
National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys: www.naela.org
OTHER FORECLOSURE DEFENSE AND BANKRUPTCY LINKS
Foreclosure Defense Show: www.LoanModRadio.com
BK Attorney Steve: www.BKAttorneyS.net
Foreclosure Defense Resource Center: www.ForeclosureDefenseResourceCenter.com
Trial Plan Fraud: www.TrialPlanFraud.com
Vondran Blogs: http://activerain.com/attorneysteve
Foreclosure Defense Radio Show (Loan Modification Radio) www.LoanModRadio.com
LOOKING FOR A LAWYER TO TAKE YOUR CASE ON A CONTINGENCY FEE BASIS? WE TAKE WORLD SAVINGS AND WACHOVIA LOANS ON CONTINGENCY. TO FIND A LAWYER WHO MAY TAKE A CASE ON CONTINGENCY FEE BASIS IN YOUR AREA SEARCH THE DATABASE AT WWW.CONTINGENCYCASE.COM.
OUR GOAL HERE IS TO PROVIDE YOU GENERAL LEGAL INFORMATION, TIPS, STRATEGIES, AND INSIGHTS THAT MAY HELP YOU SAVE YOUR HOME OR INVESTMENT PROPERTY FROM FORELOSURE. SOME TOPICS THAT WILL BE DISCUSSED ON THIS WEBSITE ARE AS FOLLOWS:
- Truth In Lending Law including rescission rights
- Bankruptcy with a focus on Chapter 7 and Chapter 13
- Forensic Loan Audits
- Predatoy Lending
- Mortgage Litigation
- Foreclosure Timelines
- Tenants Rights facing foreclosure of subject property
- Seeking injunctions to stop foreclosure of your property
- Lis Pendens
- Quiet Title
- RESPA law
- Option Arm Loans
- Subprime Slime Loans
- Produce the Note issues
- Rescinding Loans through bnkruptcy
- Unlawful Detainer Timelines
- SB 94 issues
- Commercial loan modification
- Residential Loan Modification
- Deficieny Judgments
- Trial Plan Modifications
- Real Estate lawsuits
- Loan Modification Scams
- Real Estate and Foreclosure Cases
- DRE broker issues includijg DRE audits
- Advance Fee and Foreclosure Consultant Issues
If you have special requests for topics you would like us to cover please do not hesitate to email us at firstname.lastname@example.org Please keep in mind any posts you make to this wwebsite are NOT private and can be read by anyone, so please do not submit confidential information. In addition, submitting information to us or posting information on this website does NOT create an Attorney-Client relationship. Only signing a retainer can do that. All information provided on this website is of general legal nature only and is not intended to be construed as lgal advice or a substitute for legal advice. For specific questions about your case or your property, please contact a foreclosure defense lawyer or bankruptcy attorney. Articles may be missing certain information, and the law may not be complete, current, or up-to-date. Please conduct your own reasearch and do not rely on information contained on this website. Steve Vondran, Attorney is licensed to practice law only in the States of California and Arizona and only seeks to solicit and serve Clients in these two states. This blog can be construed as an advertisement and communication pursuat to state bare rules. All articles are copyright to the law offices of Steve Vondran, P.C. All rights reserved.
The Arizona State Legislature passed a law effective October 1, 2009 that provides that any person wishing to negotiate with lenders or note holders to obtain a temporary or permanent modification in an existing residential mortgage loan agreement become licensed as a Mortgage Loan Originator (MLO) and be employed by an Arizona licensed mortgage broker or mortgage banker. Such licensing must occur no later than July 2010.
Arizona Loan Originator Statutes: Under Arizona’s loan originator statutes, (http://www.azleg.gov/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp?Title=6 ), Article 4, all individuals meeting the definition of a loan originator (LO) must meet licensing requirements that are in compliance with the SAFE Act.
The new Arizona Loan Modification Licensing Law brings Arizona into compliance with the requirements of the Federal SAFE ACT (Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act.
The Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008 (SAFE Act) established requirements for the licensing and registration of all Mortgage Loan Originators (MLOs). MLOs who work for an insured depository or its owned or controlled subsidiary that is regulated by a federal banking agency, or for an institution regulated by the Farm Credit Administration, are registered. All other MLOs are to be licensed by the states.
Safe act sets minimum licensing requirements:
The SAFE Act requires state-licensed MLO’s to do the following:
(1) Pass a written qualified national test with at least a 75% pass rate
The Loan Originator Test is comprised of two components; a National and a State Component.
Click here for more information on Testing:
You can download the LO Testing Handbook at:
(2) To complete 20 units of pre-licensure education courses, and to take annual continuing education courses.
Here is a link to the 20 unit education requirement: http://www.azdfi.gov/Licensing/NMLSLO/RESPONSIBLE_INDIVIDUAL_AND_LOAN_ORIGINATOR_EDUCATION_as_of_08192009__amended_9-10-2009_.pdf
(3) All MLO’s must submit fingerprints to the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System (NMLS) for submission to the FBI for a criminal background check
(4) State-licensed MLO’s must also provide authorization for NMLS to obtain an independent credit report (Applicants must show financial responsibility. Having a bankruptcy will not automatically disqualify an applicant as applications will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
(5) MLO’s must post a $200,000 bond or pay into the mortgage recovery fund.
SAFE ACT minimum State requirements can be found in a document on this website: http://mortgage.nationwidelicensingsystem.org/SAFE/NMLS%20Document%20Library/MLO-Requirements-SAFE.pdf.
Information regarding NMLS, loan originator licensing and course requirements can be found at the Arizona Department of Financial Institution website at: http://www.azdfi.gov/Licensing/NMLSLO/nmlslo.html.
SAFE ACT minimum State requirements for various states can be found here: http://mortgage.nationwidelicensingsystem.org/SAFE/NMLS%20Document%20Library/MLO-Requirements-SAFE.pdf
(6) In addition, all loan originators must file a form (MU4) with the Arizona Department of Financial Institutions.
(7) The employing broker/company must file a mortgage call report and report of condition through the NMLS.
Perhaps these requirements will stem the rash of loan modification scams perpetrated in and around the Phoenix, Arizona area and stop these so-called “attorney backed” and “attorney based” loan modification companies from victimizing Arizona homeowners.
Steve Vondran, Esq., is a real estate, bankruptcy, and foreclosure defense lawyer practicing in Phoenix, Arizona. He is also licensed to practice law in California. He can be reached at email@example.com or www.vondranlegal.com
KEYWORDS: PHOENIX REAL ESTATE LAWYER / PHOENIX LOAN MODIFICATION LAWYER / ARIZONA FORECLOSURE DEFENSE LAWYER / PHOENIX FORENSIC AUDIT / ARIZONA FORECLOSURE ATTORNEY / ARIZONA LOAN MODIFICATION LICENSING LAW / ARIZONA REAL ESTATE LAWYER.
When you are considering filing for bankruptcy in the Greater Phoenix Arizona region (Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tempe, Mesa, etc.), you will likely be filing your case in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona.
The address for the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona is 230 N. First Ave, Suite 101, Phoenix, AZ 85003. The general telephone numbers are 602-682-4000 / 800-556-9230.
To find your bankruptcy filing office in Arizona use this tool: http://www.azb.uscourts.gov/ZipTool.aspx.
Here is a link to common forms and publications that may assist you in filing for bankruptcy in Phoenix Arizona with or without a Phoenix bankruptcy Lawyer http://www.azb.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?PID=73.
Here are some Arizona bankruptcy links of interest that may assist you in understanding the bankruptcy process in Phoenix, Arizona: http://www.azb.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?PID=9.
More good information about filing for bankruptcy in and around Phoenix Arizona can be found at www.BKAttorneyS.Net
KEYOWRDS: PHOENIX BANKRUPTCY ATTORNEY / PHOENIX BANKRUPTCY LAWYER / SCOTTSDALE BANKRUPTCY LAWYER / SCOTTSDALE BANKRUPTCY ATTORNEY /FOUNTAIN HILLS BANKRUPTCY LAWYER /FOUNTAIN HILLS BANKRUPTCY ATTORNEY /CREDITORS HEARING / AUTOMATIC STAY / ADVERSARY PROCEEDING / LIEN STRIP
(1) are there are grounds for an injunction (wrongful foreclosure / failure to follow foreclosure laws / truth in lending rescission grounds with ability to tender) See our website at www.rescindmyloan.net for more information on truth in Lendin Rescisssion cases;
(2) Are there grounds for a preadtory lending lawsuit? (ex. predatory lending claims against a brooker who may have been insured at the time of the transaction). For example, if a broker made over $20,000 by steering a homeowner into a worse loan than they qualfied for – given their credit scores and ability to repay – this may result in a breach of fiduciary duty and provide grounds for a lawsuit for money damages. Note that this may not stop your foreclosure sale;
(3) Did your loan servicer fail to respond to a qualified writen request or debt validaton letter?;
(4) has the lender or loan servicer failed to identify the true holder or benefiaicy of the loan following a proper request for such? Can someone tell why it has become a secret in America who you owe your money to, or who you would have to contact if you wanted to pay off your mortgage in full and ensure the proper party received the money? See our website at www.producehthenoteattorney.com for more information about the “produce the note” foreclosure defense theory;
(5) Do you have a truly predatory lending case that is worthy of presenting to a judge and/or jury who are hearing thousands of these types of cases? See our website at www.optionarmlawyer.com for more information.
(6) Did the lender or loan servicer breach a trial plan agreement or final modification agreement? See our website at www.trialplanfraud.com for more information.
(7) Are there better options if a loan modification cannot be achieved such as filing for bankruptcy, pursuing a short-sale or seeking deed-in-lieu of foreclosure? See www.BKAttorneys.net for more information about filing for Bankruptcy protection in California or Arizona.
These are just a few considerations. For specific questions about your case contact a foreclosure defense lawyer at (877) 276-5074.
MORE FORECLOSURE INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND AT WWW.FORECLOSUREDEFENSERESOURCECENTER.COM: This website is provided by the Law Offices of Steven C. Vondran, P.C., as a general information website that seeks to educate California and Arizona Homeowners (we are only licensed to practice laws in these two states, and only seek to solicit clients in these two states).
Foreclosure Defense Topics we will cover include: Truth in Lending (in many cases your most powerful weapon to stop foreclosure), Forensic Loan Audits, Predatory Loans and Potential Causes of Action, Lis Pendens, Deficiency Judgments, Trial Plan Modifications, and more.
Some people have asked me, why are you passionate about foreclosure defense and helping Arizona homeowners? One of the answers I like to give is the following:
OUR MISSION: “WE ARE FIGHTING FOR “TRUTH IN LENDING” (a strange concept, i know!):
(1) WE ARE FIGHTING FOR TRUE AND ACCURATE DISCLOSURE OF A LOAN PRODUCT, ITS NATURE, AND TERMS (TELL PEOPLE THE TRUTH ABOUT THE LOANS THEY ARE LOCKING INTO). GIVE THEM THE CHARMS BOOKLET AND CALIFORNIA ARM DISCLOSURES
(2) WE ARE FIGHTING FOR TRUE AND FAIR DISCLOSURE OF THE PRICE-TAG FOR THE LOAN (APR AND FINANCE CHARGES THAT ARE TRUE AND ACCURATE). ACCURATE TRUTH IN LENDING STATEMENTS
(3) WE ARE FIGHTING FOR FAIR AND ACCURATE DISCLOSURE OF THE RIGHT TO CANCEL THE LOAN WHEN APPLICABLE (GIVE PEOPLE THEIR REQUIRED COPIES AND GIVE TRUE DATES UPON WHICH LOANS CAN BE RESCINDED)
(4) WE ARE FIGHITNG FOR FAIR AND HONEST UNDERWRITING THAT IS BASED UPON A CLIENTS TRUE ABILITY TO REPAY A LOAN (WHICH MAY MEAN VERIFYING INCOME AND TELLING SOME PEOPLE THEY DON’T QUALIFY) AND TRUE AND ACURATE APPRAISAL OF PROPERTY THAT SUPPORTS THE UNDERWRITING.
(5) WE ARE FIGHTING FOR FULL DISLCOSURE OF THE HOLDER OF THE LOAN (INVESTOR) AND PROOF AS TO WHO OWNS THE RIGHT TO BE PAID, AND THE RIGHT TO FORECLOSE, AND WHO MUST BY LAW CONTACT CALIFORNIA HOMEOWNERS TO DISCUSS LOAN MODIFICATIONS AND ASSESS BORROWER FINANCES.
(6) WE ARE FIGHTING FOR FULLFULL AND FAIR ACCOUNTING FOR PAYMENTS, LATE FEES, ESCROW CHARGES, AND OTHER CHARGES IN THE LOAN SERVICER’S BACK-ROOM. ANSWER THOSE QWR’S ON TIME, AND IN UNDERSTANDABLE DETAIL. STOP REPORTING NEGATIVE CREDIT DURING THIS PERIOD.
(7) WE ARE FIGHTING FOR HONESTY AND “TRUTH IN TRIAL PLANS” – IF HOMEOWNERS DON’T QUALIFY FOR A MORTGAGE RESTRUCTING / LOAN MODIFICATION, DON’T SEND THEM A TRIAL PLAN THAT LEADS THEM TO BELEIVE THEY DO. IN ADDITION, BE TRUTHFUL ABOUT THE PRECISE TERMS OF THE LOAN MODFIICATIONS (DISCLOSE THE TERMS CLEARLY) AND HONOR YOUR TRIAL PLAN AGREEMENTS.
ITS TIME THE LENDERS OPEN THE BOOKS AND SHOW US WHERE THE BAIL-OUT MONEY HAS GONE. WE NEED SOME TRANSPARENCY. WE NEED SOME ACCOUNTABILITY TO SHOW WHAT HAS BEEN DONE WITH TAX-PAYER MONEY. WAS YOUR LOAN ALREADY PAID OFF VIA THE BAILOUT, AND NOW THEY WANT TO COLLECT MORE MONEY FROM YOU FROM A LOAN THAT MAY HAVE BEEN ALREADY PAID? IF YOUR LOAN WAS SECURITIZED INTO A “LOAN POOL” IS THERE ANY CHANCE YOUR ENTIRE POOL OF LOAN WAS BAILED OUT AND PAID OFF? IF SO, DOES THAT MEAN THEY STILL GET TO COLLECT FROM YOU AS WELL? WHAT IS THAT? ISN’T THAT A WINDFALL……..UNJUST ENRICHMENT?
PEOPLE DESERVE TO BE REPRESENTED BY A FORECLOSURE DEFENSE LAWYER WHEN TRYING TO RESOLVE ONE OF BIGGEST PROBLEMS MOST HOMEOWNERS WILL EVER FACE. IN MANY CASES, A FORECLOSURE DEFENSE LAWYER CAN EVALUATE YOUR LOAN, REVIEW YOUR MORTGAGE DOCUMENTS (FORENSIC AUDIT), DEMAND THAT DEBTS BE VALIDATED, SEND MODIFICATION PROPOSALS, REVIEW TRIAL PLAN AND OTHER LOAN MODFICATION AGREEMENTS, ADVISE ON DEFICIENCY JUDGMENTS, DISCUSS POTENTIAL BANKRUPTCY AND SHORT-SALE OPTIONS, AND ENSURE THAT YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE FORECLOSURE LAWS ARE ADHERED TO AND PROTECTED. THE BANKS HAVE EXPENSIVE LAWYERS ON THEIR TIME, YOU DESERVE TO BE REPRESENTED DURING THIS CONFUSING AND STRESSFUL ORDEAL. THIS IS THEIR GAME AND THEIR BATTLEFIELD.
IF YOU ARE AN ARIZONA HOMEOWNER PLEASE CONTACT US (877) 276-5084 TO DISCUSS YOUR FORECLOSURE CASE.
KEYWORDS: ARIZONA FORECLOSURE DEFENSE LAWYER / ARIZONA FORECLOSURE DEFENSE ATTORNEY / PHOENIX FORECLOSURE DEFENSE LAWYER / PHOENIX FORECLOSURE DEFENSE ATTORNEY / TRUTH IN LENDING LAWYER / TRUTH IN LENDING ATTORNEY / PREDATORY LENDING LAWYER / PREDATORY LENDING ATTORNEY / QUALIFIED WRITTEN REQUEST / RESPA LAWYER / RESPA ATTORNEY / PHOENIX TRUTH IN LENDING LAWYER / PHOENIX TRUTH IN LENDING ATTORNEY / FORENSIC LOAN AUDITS / ATTORNEY LOAN AUDITS / SCOTTSDALE FORECLOSURE DEFENSE LAWYER / SCOTTSDALE FORECLOSURE DEFENSE ATTORNEY / SCOTTSDALE TRUTH IN LENDING LAWYER / SCOTTSDALE TRUTH IN LENDING ATTORNEY / SCOTTSDALE LOAN MODIFICATION LAWYER / PHOENIX LOAN MODIFICATION ATTORNEY / OPTION ARM LOAN LITIGATION.
The Law Offices of Steve Vondran in licensed to practice law in California and Arizona. Steve Vondran, Esq. is a licensed attorney and real estate broker in California and Arizona.
He can be reached by email at firstname.lastname@example.org or toll free (877) 276-5084
Arizona Office (Esplanade): 2415 E. Camelback Road, Suite 700, Phoenix, AZ, 85020.
California Office (Fashion Island): 620 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1100, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Our Real Estate Law Services:
1. Loan Modifications / Loan Workouts (World Savings and Wachovia Loans)2. Commercial Lease Modifications3.DRE audits, hearings and investigations4. Real Estate Broker admissions cases5. Foreclosure Defense6. Mortgage Law & Predatory Law7. Phoenix Real Estate Zoning Attorney – Greater Phoenix (Scottsdale, Goodyear, Buckeye, Casa Grande etc.)8. Phoenix Eminent Domain Attorney / Inverse Condemnation / Prop 207 (Greater Phoenix)9. Real Estate Arbitration, Litigation and Mediation10. Foreclosure Consultant Contracts / Loan Modification Contracts11.Real Estate LLC’s & Incorporations12. Real Estate Partnership Law13. Quiet Title Actions14. Forensic Loan Audits – Greater Phoenix (Truth in Lending (TILA), RESPA, HOEPA, Fraud, etc.)______________________________________________________________________________
KEYWORDS: ARIZONA FORECLOSURE DEFENSE ATTORNEY / CALIFORNIA FORECLOSURE DEFENSE ATTORNEY / PHOENIX FORECLOSURE DEFENSE ATTORNEY / PHOENIX FORECLOSURE DEFENSE LAWYER / SCOTTSDALE FORECLOSURE DEFENSE ATTORNEY / SCOTTSDALE FORECLOSURE DEFENSE LAWYER / ORANGE COUNTY PREDATORY LENDING LAWYER / ORANGE COUNTY FORECLOSURE DEFENSE ATTORNEY / ORANGE COUNTY FORECLOSURE DEFENSE LAYWER / TRUTH IN LENDING LAWYER / TRUTH IN LENDING ATTORNEY / SOUTHER CALIFORNIA MORTGAGE LAW ATTORNEY / MORTGAGE LAWYER / RIVERSIDE FORECLOSURE ATTORNEY / RIVERSIDE FORECLOSURE LAWYER / RESPA LAWYER / RESPA ATTORNEY / FORECLOSURE DEFENSE LAW / PHOENIX LOAN MODIFICATION ATTORNEY / PHOENIX FORECLOSURE DEFENSE LAWYER / ORANGE COUNTY REAL ESTATE LAWYER / ORANGE COUNTY PREDATORY LENDING AND MORTGAGE LITIGATION ATTORNEY / NEWPORT BEACH FORECLOSURE DEFENSE LAWYER / NEWPORT BEACH FORECLOSURE DEFENSE ATTORNEY / CALIFORNIA FORECLOSURE DEFENSE LAWYER / PREDATORY LENDING LAWYER / LOAN RESCISSION ATTORNEY / TILA RESCISSION LAWYER / WACHOVIA OPTION ARM LOAN / WORLD SAVINGS OPTION ARM LOAN / RESCIND MY LOAN /
HELPFUL FORECLOSURE DEFENSE LINKS:
To see some of other other websites dealing with the financial crisis please review the following websites:
(1) www.OptionArmLawyer.com (potential attacks against the predatory option arm loan – aka “Pick-a-Prey”)
(2) www.TrialPlanFraud.com (tackling issues involved with what we call trial-plan shennanigans)
(3) www.BKAttorneyS.net (BK Attorney Steve – Chapter 7 Bankruptcy information for Arizona and California Homeowners)
(4) www.RescindMyLoan.net (website that discusses Truth in Lending Rescission information)
(5) www.LoanModRadio.com (site which features foreclosure defense issues in streaming audio)
(6) www.ProduceTheNoteAttorney.com (general information on the “Produce the Note” foreclosure defense strategy that is running rampant on the Internet)
www.LoanModSolutions.net (Submit your Wachovia / World Savings Loans)
www.LoanModificationRipoff.net (Submit your Loan Mod Scam – we may be able to take your case on contingency).
Our profiles will also be listed on www.ContingencyCase.com an online legal directory for lawyers who will consider taking cases on a contingency fee basis in a variety of legal areas. I will be listed for our World Savings and Wachovia Option Arm loans.
Our Real Estate Law Services:
1. Loan Modifications / Loan Workouts (World Savings and Wachovia Loans)
2. Commercial Lease Modifications
3. DRE audits, hearings and investigations
4. Real Estate Broker admissions cases
5. Foreclosure Defense
6. Mortgage Law & Predatory Law
7. Phoenix Real Estate Zoning Attorney – Greater Phoenix (Scottsdale, Goodyear, Buckeye, Casa Grande etc.)
8. Phoenix Eminent Domain Attorney / Inverse Condemnation / Prop 207 (Greater Phoenix)
9. Real Estate Arbitration, Litigation and Mediation
10. Foreclosure Consultant Contracts / Loan Modification Contracts
11. Real Estate LLC’s & Incorporations
12. Real Estate Partnership Law
13. Quiet Title Actions
14. Forensic Loan Audits – Greater Phoenix (Truth in Lending (TILA), RESPA, HOEPA, Fraud, etc.)
THE LAW OFFICES OF STEVE VONDRAN IS LICENSED TO PRACTICE LAW IN ARIZONA AND CALIFORNIA. PLEASE DO NOT SEND US CONFIDENTIAL EMAILS OR POST CONFIDENTIAL CASE INFORMATION ON ANY OF OUR BLOGS OR WEBSITES. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF PRIVACY.
WE SERVE ARIZONA REAL ESTATE CLIENTS IN THE FOLLOWING CITIES: PEORIA, SURPRISE, SUN CITY, PHOENIX, GLENDALE, CASA GRANDE, SCOTTSDALE, TEMPE, MESA, CHANDLER, MARICOPA, BUCKEYE, GOODYEAR, AVONDALE AND OTHER SURROUNDING CITIES IN THE GREATER PHOENIX AREA.
THIS IS AN ADVERTISEMENT AND COMMUNICATION PURSUANT TO STATE BAR RULES.
California tenants have rights when residential property is being foreclosed upon. The following two sections apply where a lender, trustee, beneficiary or authorized agent is seeking to foreclose on residential real property in the State of California:
(1) Under California Civil Code Section 2924.8 the following must be posted where the lender knows a tenant is in possession of residential real property subject to eviction
(a) Upon posting a notice of sale pursuant to Section 2924f, a trustee or authorized agent shall also post the following notice, in the manner required for posting the notice of sale on the property to be sold, and a mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall mail, at the same time in an envelope addressed to the “Resident of property subject to foreclosure sale” the following notice in English and the languages described in Section 1632: “Foreclosure process has begun on this property, which may affect your right to continue to live in this property. Twenty days or more after the date of this notice, this property may be sold at foreclosure. If you are renting this property, the new property owner may either give you a new lease or rental agreement or provide you with a 60-day eviction notice. However, other laws may prohibit an eviction in this circumstance or provide you with a longer notice before eviction. You may wish to contact a lawyer or your local legal aid or housing counseling agency to discuss any rights you may have.”
The following provisions also apply:
(b) It shall be an infraction to tear down the notice described in subdivision:
- within 72 hours of posting. Violators shall be subject to a fine of one hundred dollars ($100).
- A state government entity shall make available translations of the notice described in subdivision
- which may be used by a mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent to satisfy the requirements of this section.
- This section shall only apply to loans secured by residential real property, and if the billing address for the mortgage note is different than the property address.
- This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2013, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2013, deletes or extends that date.
(2) Under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1161(b) the following provisions apply in regard to foreclosed property wherein a tenant resides in the subject property:
1161b. (a) Notwithstanding Section 1161a, a tenant or subtenant in possession of a rental housing unit at the time the property is sold in foreclosure shall be given 60 days’ written notice to quit pursuant to Section 1162 before the tenant or subtenant may be removed from the property as prescribed in this chapter. (b) This section shall not apply if any party to the note remains in the property as a tenant, subtenant, or occupant. (c) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2013, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2013, deletes or extends that date.
The Law Offices of Steve Vondran in licensed to practice law in California and Arizona. Steve Vondran, Esq. is a licensed attorney and real estate broker in California and Arizona.
He can be reached by email at email@example.com or toll free (877) 276-5084
Offices:Arizona Office (Esplanade): 2415 E. Camelback Road, Suite 700, Phoenix, AZ, 85020.California Office (Fashion Island): 620 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1100, Newport Beach, CA 92660 _____________________________________________________________________________
Our Real Estate Law Services:
- Loan Modifications / Loan Workouts (World Savings and Wachovia Loans
- Commercial Lease Modifications
- DRE audits, hearings and investigations
- Real Estate Broker admissions cases
- Foreclosure Defense
- Mortgage Law & Predatory Law
- Phoenix Real Estate Zoning Attorney – Greater Phoenix (Scottsdale, Goodyear, Buckeye, Casa Grande etc.)
- Phoenix Eminent Domain Attorney / Inverse Condemnation / Prop 207 (Greater Phoenix)
- Real Estate Arbitration, Litigation and Mediation
- Foreclosure Consultant Contracts / Loan Modification Contracts
- Real Estate LLC’s & Incorporations
- Real Estate Partnership Law
- Quiet Title Actions
- Forensic Loan Audits – Greater Phoenix (Truth in Lending (TILA), RESPA, HOEPA, Fraud, etc).
KEYWORDS: ARIZONA FORECLOSURE DEFENSE ATTORNEY / CALIFORNIA FORECLOSURE DEFENSE ATTORNEY / PHOENIX FORECLOSURE DEFENSE ATTORNEY / PHOENIX FORECLOSURE DEFENSE LAWYER / SCOTTSDALE FORECLOSURE DEFENSE ATTORNEY / SCOTTSDALE FORECLOSURE DEFENSE LAWYER / ORANGE COUNTY PREDATORY LENDING LAWYER / ORANGE COUNTY FORECLOSURE DEFENSE ATTORNEY / ORANGE COUNTY FORECLOSURE DEFENSE LAYWER / TRUTH IN LENDING LAWYER / TRUTH IN LENDING ATTORNEY / SOUTHER CALIFORNIA MORTGAGE LAW ATTORNEY / MORTGAGE LAWYER / RIVERSIDE FORECLOSURE ATTORNEY / RIVERSIDE FORECLOSURE LAWYER / RESPA LAWYER / RESPA ATTORNEY / FORECLOSURE DEFENSE LAW / PHOENIX LOAN MODIFICATION ATTORNEY / PHOENIX FORECLOSURE DEFENSE LAWYER / ORANGE COUNTY REAL ESTATE LAWYER / ORANGE COUNTY PREDATORY LENDING AND MORTGAGE LITIGATION ATTORNEY / NEWPORT BEACH FORECLOSURE DEFENSE LAWYER / NEWPORT BEACH FORECLOSURE DEFENSE ATTORNEY / CALIFORNIA FORECLOSURE DEFENSE LAWYER / PREDATORY LENDING LAWYER / LOAN RESCISSION ATTORNEY / TILA RESCISSION LAWYER / WACHOVIA OPTION ARM LOAN / WORLD SAVINGS OPTION ARM LOAN / RESCIND MY LOAN
HELPFUL FORECLOSURE DEFENSE LINKS:
- SUBMIT YOUR FORECLOSURE / LOAN SCENARIO: WWW.LOANMODSOLUTIONS.NET
- SUBMIT YOUR LOAN MODIFICATION SCAM SCENARIO: WWW.LOANMODIFICATIONRIPOFF.NET
- LITIGATING OPTION ARM LOANS WWW.OPTIONARMLAWYER.COM
- CALIFORNIA FORECLOSURE DEFENSE ATTORNEY STEVE VONDRAN WEBSITE: WWW.VONDRANLEGAL.COM
- ARIZONA FORECLOSURE DEFENSE ATTORNEY STEVE VONDRAN WEBSITE: WWW.VONDRANLEGAL.COM
- STEVE VONDRAN REAL ESTATE WEBSITE WWW.VONDRANLAW.COM
- INFORMATION ON TRIAL PLAN FRAUD: WWW.TRIALPLANFRAUD.COM
- FORECLOSURE DEFENSE RADIO SHOW: WWW.LOANMODRADIO.COM
- INFORMATION ON TRUTH IN LENDING LOAN RESCISSION: WWW.RESCINDMYLOAN.NET
- INFORMATION ON PRODUCE THE NOTE: WWW.PRODUCETHENOTEATTRORNEY.COM
SOME OF THE ABOVE WEBSITES CAN BE VIEWED AT WWW.CUSTOMLAWNBLOGS.COM (CREATOR OF MY LEGAL BLOGS). THEY ARE OPERATED BY WWW.CONTINGENCYCASE.COM WEBSITE WHICH IS A WEBSITE DIRECTORY FOR CONTINGENCY CASE LAWYERS ACROSS THE UNITED STATES).
The foregoing information is general legal information only and shall not be relied upon as legal advice, or a substitution for legal advice. If you have specific legal questions about your foreclosure case, or loan modification case you should seek out the advice of a real estate attorney. In addition, the information posted above may not be 100% complete, accurate or up-to-date. The Law Offices of Steve Vondran is licensed to practice law in the state of Arizona and California and only seeks to solicit and serve Clients in these two states. Steve Vondran, Esq. is a licensed attorney and real estate broker in California and Arizona. He can be reached by email at firstname.lastname@example.org or toll free (877) 276-5084. This is an advertisement and communication pursuant to State Bar Rules. Please do not send us private or confidential information through any of our above-listed websites. Sending us an email does not create an attorney-client relationship (only signing a legal retainer will do this).