GLASKI CASE CERTIFIED BY CALIFORNIA APPEAL COURT ON 8/8/2013!!! HOMEOWNERS PAY ATTENTION

7/27/2019 GLASKI CASE CERTIFIED BY CALIFORNIA APPEAL COURT ON 8/8/2013!!! HOMEOWNERS PAY ATTENTION

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/glaski-case-certified-by-california-appeal-court-on-882013-homeowners 1/4

GLASKI CASE CERTIFIED

FOR PUBLICATION ON8/8/2013 BY THE

CALIFORNIA APPEAL

COURT!!

08/08/2013 Order

granting

publication

filed.

As the nonpublished opinion

filed on July 31, 2013, in the above

entitled matter hereby meets the

standards for publication specifiedin the California Rules of Court,

rule 8.1105(c), it is ordered that the

opinion be certified for publication

in the Official Reports. (JAA)

08/08/2013 Received: request for publication submitted

by atty Freshman, however pos

does not include all parties ; moot

since publication granted

THIS IS WATERSHED MOMENT FOR CALIFORNIA!!



FOR FUTURE REFERENCE-----IT IS A DONE DEALFOR THE GLASKI CASE!!

How To Request the California Court of AppealPublish its Decision in Glaski v. Bank of America

Researched by Keith Schartz.

This is for informational purposes only for anyone interested in requesting the publication of the Thomas

A. Glaski, Plaintiff and Appellant v. Bank of America, National Association et al., Defendants and

Respondents Opinion, Case F064556 rendered, filed July 31, 2013 out of the Fifth Appellate

District, Court of Appeal of the State of California. The case opinion is available for viewing but cannot

be cited or relied upon by the court or parties until an order for publication is given except under strict

reasons given for using unpublished opinions. See Rules of Court, CA, for guidance.

VICTORY OVER CHASE: How To Request the California Court of ... victoryoverchase.blogspot.com/.../how-to-request-california-court-of.html 7 hours ago - VICTORY OVER CHASE ... Attorney for Plaintiff Glaski: Law Offices of Richard Antognini, 819 I Street, Lincoln, CA 94568, ph.916645-7278 ...

naked capitalism

Calling All California Lawyers (and Others

Who Want to Help Abused Homeowners)!Please Ask California Court of Appeal toPublish an Important Pro-Borrower Chain ofTitle Ruling



Posted: 08 Aug 2013 02:25 AM PDT

Your humble blogger is in no position to speculate how this curious set of circumstances came about, but

we have a good news, bad news situation, and hope readers can help remedy the bad news part.

The good news part is the California Court of Appeal endorsed what we’ve called the New York trusttheory in mortgage securitizations in a recent decision called Glaski v. Bank of America (ruling below).

One of the big issues in mortgage securitizations has turned out to be whether the party seeking to

foreclose on a delinquent borrower has the legal authority (“standing”) to do so. Advocates of the New

York trust theory (the overwhelming majority of subprime mortgage securitizations elected New York law

to govern the trust) argue that New York trust law is particularly unforgiving, that both statute and case

law require that a trustee act only as specifically stipulated in the trust documents. Any other action is

void, meaning it has no legal effect.

The wee problem is the documents that created these trusts, the pooling and servicing agreement,

stipulated specific dates as to when all the mortgages had to be conveyed to the trusts (and conveyed

means not just paid for, but endorsed through a chain of title and in the possession of the trustee or its

custodian). The big reason for the fixation on getting everything done by a certain date was that the 1986

Tax Reform Act created REMICs (real estate mortgage investment conduits) and these trusts were

intended to qualify as REMICs. The various cutoff dates were set up in order to conform with the REMIC

requirements. But whoops, it appears that those carefully crafted procedures stop being followed in the

2000s by a lot of the industry participants.

The Examiner (hat tip April Charney) provided a good layperson’s summary of the case:

When Thomas A. Glaski of Fresno County fell behind his mortgage payments, as with hundreds of

distressed homeowners he was confronted with a rigid lender that offered no meaningful attempt to

modify his troubled loan.

Glaski’s lender, now defunct WaMu, promptly commenced a foreclosure action after declaring his loan in

default, and in the foreclosure bank friendly state of California where foreclosures occur essentially on the

strength of a simple bank declaration, the sale of Glaski’s home was finalized.

Through his attorney, Glaski had filed suit to stop the bank sale but was initially unsuccessful. However

Glaski appealed to the state’s higher court arguing that the bank lacked the rights or “legal standing” to

foreclose and sell his home and the high court resoundingly agreed. The higher court reversed the bank’s

foreclosure sale.

The appeals court found fatal flaws in bank transactional practices during the securitization or loan

pooling process which occurs systemically after the loan closes…

A non judicial state means that a bank foreclosure requires no judicial intervention and can occur solely

within a closed arrangement between the bank and its assigned Trustee. Glaski has changed those stakes.

So a well-respected court provided a carefully-reasoned pro-borrower ruling. And you would think it’s

even better news because courts in California have generally not been terribly receptive to the

securitization fail argument.



So what’s the bad news? The opinion is unpublished. That means other litigants typically cannot cite it in

briefs, and it is not good law in California.

However, interested parties have until August 20, 2013 to submit a request for publication to the court.

I’m court usually makes publication decisions within two weeks of the ruling (which was July 31), so in

reality, there is another week to get letters in.

I’m going to see if I can get a letter in and I am also pinging Occupy the SEC, which is very

good at turning around letters quickly. Please write if you are unhappy about bank abuses in

foreclosures. There is a very strict procedure for how to to this (for instance, you need to mail copies of

your letter to the defendant and plaintiff attorneys), but helpfully, this post tells you everything you

need to do (even names and addresses of everyone who needs to get a letter, a form for the proofs of

service) and even provides a sample letter.

Glaski v. Bank of America, CA Court of Appeal Opinion 7-31-2013 by webber3292

Please consider mentioning this on your Twitter or Facebook account .... See Naked

Capitalism post ABOVE. Thank you!

GLASKI CASE CERTIFIED BY CALIFORNIA APPEAL COURT ON 8/8/2013!!! HOMEOWNERS PAY ATTENTION

Documents

Transcript of GLASKI CASE CERTIFIED BY CALIFORNIA APPEAL COURT ON 8/8/2013!!! HOMEOWNERS PAY ATTENTION