Mortgage Servicing Fraud
occurs post loan origination when mortgage servicers use false statements and book-keeping entries, fabricated assignments, forged signatures and utter counterfeit intangible Notes to take a homeowner's property and equity.
Articles |The FORUM |Law Library |Videos | Fraudsters & Co. |File Complaints |How they STEAL |Search MSFraud |Contact Us
MSFraud Admin
The Court of Appeal for the State of California, Fourth District, 
recently held that there is no private right of action for violation 
of Cal. Civ. Code §§ 2923.52 and 2923.53.

By Charles Cox, Esq.  

Cal App Holds No Private Right of Action Under 

loan modification statute.

The Court of Appeal for the State of California, Fourth District,

recently held that there is no private right of action for violation

of Cal. Civ. Code §§ 2923.52 and 2923.53.


A copy of the opinion is available at:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/G043544.PDF


This matter involves a California foreclosure, where the lender 

purchased the collateral at sale.  The borrowers filed a writ 

proceeding with the appellate court to stay the eviction 

pending further order.


The borrowers attempted among other things to invalidate the 

foreclosure sale, alleging violations of Cal. Civ. Code §§ 2923.52

and 2923.53.  


As you may recall, California Civil Code section 2923.52 imposes

a 90-day delay in the normal foreclosure process, and California 

Civil Code section 2923.53 allows for an exemption to that delay

if lenders have loan modification programs that meet certain criteria.


Enforcement of sections 2923.52 and 2923.53 is committed to 

regulatory agencies, which have implicit power to terminate the

license of any company whose program is not in compliance. 

Section 2923.53, subdivision (h), makes enforcement a matter of

losing a license.


The Court held that, “[u]nlike section 2923.5 as construed by this

court in Mabry v. Superior Court (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 208 

(Mabry), neither section 2923.52 or section 2923.53 provides 

any private right of action, even a very limited one as this court

found in Mabry.”  In the words of the Court, “[n]ot only is there

no express unmistakable private right to sue, there is a virtually

unmistakable intent not to allow a private right to sue.”


The borrowers also sought to invalidate the foreclosure sale under

Cal. Civ. Code  § 2923.54.  However, the Court noted that 

“Subdivision (b) of that statute is clear that: ‘Failure to comply

with Section 2923.52 or 2923.53 shall not invalidate any sale 

that would otherwise be valid under Section 2924f.’” 

 

The Court rejected the borrowers’ argument that the statute does not apply

to lenders who themselves buy the property at foreclosure, i.e., 

to lenders who cannot claim the status of bona fide purchasers, 

because any claim which the borrowers might have to invalidate 

the foreclosure sale based on sections 2923.52 and 2923.53 

necessarily entails a private right of action which the statutes do 

not give them.


Because the borrowers’ claim for relief against the impending 

eviction rested entirely on alleged violations of statutes which

the Court held do not afford them any private right of action,

the stay of the eviction was discharged, and the borrowers’ 

petition for the requested writ was denied.

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...