Why Robo-Signatures Are Illegal in California and Other Non-Judicial Foreclosure States

Why Robo-Signatures Are Illegal in California and Other Non-Judicial Foreclosure States

By Michael Patrick Rooney, Esq.

With all of the press robo-signing has gotten, it is a bit surprising that everyone is having such a hard time concluding whether these practices effect California foreclosures. My assistant even said to me today, “but the banks say that it doesn’t matter because California is non judicial.”

Because the topic has not gotten the treatment it deserves, I will gladly do the job. The following are by no means a complete list, but are the most clear LEGAL reasons (setting aside pure moral questions and the U.S. Constitution) that the Robo-Signer Controversy will lead to massive litigation in California.

In short, Robo Signers are illegal in California because good title cannot be based on fraud, robo signed non judicial foreclosure sales are void as a matter of law, the documents are not able to be recorded in California if they are not notarized, which we know was often not done properly, and finally, because they robo signed forgeries ARE intended for judicial proceedings, including evictions and bankruptcy relief from stay motions.

1. Good Title Cannot Be Based on Fraud (Even as to a 3d Party).

In the case of a fraudulent transaction California law is settled. The Court in Trout v. Trout, (1934), 220 Cal. 652 at 656 made as much plain:

“Numerous authorities have established the rule that an instrument wholly void, such as an undelivered deed, a forged instrument, or a deed in blank, cannot be made the foundation of a good title, even under the equitable doctrine of bona fide purchase. Consequently, the fact that defendant Archer acted in good faith in dealing with persons who apparently held legal title, is not in itself sufficient basis for relief.” (Emphasis added, internal citations omitted).

This sentiment was clearly echoed in 6 Angels, Inc. v. Stuart-Wright Mortgage, Inc. (2001) 85 Cal.App.4th 1279 at 1286 where the Court stated:

“It is the general rule that courts have power to vacate a foreclosure sale where there has been fraud in the procurement of the foreclosure decree or where the sale has been improperly, unfairly or unlawfully conducted, or is tainted by fraud, or where there has been such a mistake that to allow it to stand would be inequitable to purchaser and parties.” (Emphasis added).

Hence, if forged Robo Signed signatures are used to obtain the foreclosure, it CERTAINLY makes a difference in California and other non-judicial foreclosure states.

2. Any apparent sale based on Robosigned documents is void – without any legal effect – like Monopoly Money.

In Bank of America v. LaJolla Group II, the California Court of Appeals held that if a trustee is not contractually empowered under the Deed of Trust to hold a sale, it is totally void. It has no legal effect whatsoever. Title does not transfer. No right to evict arises. The property is not sold.

In turn, California Civil COde 2934a requires that the beneficiary execute and notarize and record a substitution for a valid substitution of trustee to take effect. Thus, if the Assignment of Deed of Trust is robo-signed, the sale is void. If the substitution of trustee is robo-signed, the sale is void. If the Notice of Default is Robo-Signed, the sale is void.

3. These documents…

Check out the rest here…

~

4closureFraud.org

Comments
One Response to “Why Robo-Signatures Are Illegal in California and Other Non-Judicial Foreclosure States”
  1. James M says:

    Right – I think this is good case law for CA. Similar law exists else where. The principle is the same everywhere in the US, fraud on the court is not just a block to obtaining equitable relief it is a crime.

    While the UCC may give the secondary note holder the status of a holder in due course, if they acquired the note before a default and without notice of prior fraud, they can’t use any of the prior fraudulent documents in court.

    One day there is going to be a Supreme Court decision one day on if the cleansing action attributed by UCC transfer turns bad paper into good. I suspect the court will rule constant with State court laws on this, that a person who acquires a bad security intrest or bad note secured by real property, does not suddenly magically have good title and paper, irrespective of the UCC interpretation of transferees immunities with regard to notes.

Leave a Reply