Lopez v. The Bank of New York Mellon CA4/3
This is an appeal after the sustaining of a demurrer to a wrongful foreclosure action. In his opening brief, plaintiff Juan Lopez heavily stressed the theory that violations of the pooling and servicing agreements governing the relevant securitization trust meant that the foreclosing entity did not own the right to foreclose on his mortgage. Thus he argued the spring 2015 foreclosure of his house was invalid. (See Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp. (2016) 62 Cal.4th 919, 924, 937-938.)
At oral argument, however, Lopez formally abandoned the argument, which is not surprising given recent California appellate case law undermining his void securitization theory. (See Kalnoki v. First American Trustee Servicing Solutions, LLC (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 23; Mendoza v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 802; Yhudai v. IMPAC Funding Corp. (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1252; Saterbak v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 808.)
Comments on Lopez v. The Bank of New York Mellon CA4/3