AirBNB (and similar rental sites) have been omnipresent in the news for the last few years.  Controversy has arisen in many cities as regulations and restrictions have been implemented.  The recent case of Chen v. Kraft is an example how these restrictions can impact landlords and tenants.

In Chen v. Kraft, Chen (“Landlord”) filed an unlawful detainer complaint against Kraft (“Tenant”), asserting that Tenant failed to comply with multiple 10-day notices to cease using the attic of the premises and stop subletting the unit to subtenants or short term renters.  The property was zoned R-1 and was subject to the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance.  Los Angeles prohibits short-term rentals in homes that fall within the R-1 zone.

Tenant’s affirmative defenses included the following: the “attic” plaintiff referred to was actually a “loft” which was part of the rental agreement with plaintiff’s predecessor in interest; the Los Angeles Municipal Code permitted the “sharing of the premises”; plaintiff’s predecessor in interest expressly permitted her to use the premises as an Airbnb location; and plaintiff breached the warranty of habitability.

Landlord filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Tenant was operating an illegal bed and breakfast or transient occupancy.  Tenant argued that there were triable issues of fact, including as to the nature of the occupancy of the Airbnb guests, the approval of such use, the circumstances under which the premises may be restricted from use, and waiver by Landlord’s predecessor.

The Trial Court granted Landlord’s motion, holding there was no triable issue of any material fact, and that Tenant’s use of the premises as a vacation rental violated the zoning ordinance.  Tenant appealed.


The Appellate Court affirmed the Trial Court decision.  The Appellate Court determined that Landlord established all of the elements of unlawful detainer based on the theory of illegal purpose.  Essentially, a landlord is entitled to evict a tenant if they are using the premises for an unlawful purpose.  Since the Municipal Code was clear that short term rentals were not allowed in premises zoned R-1, the Tenant’s Airbnb listings and rentals were unlawful, and Tenant failed to comply with the notices to quit.  Tenant’s argument that the prior landlord allowed the rentals was not dispositive, as such approval was an illegal contract and therefore void and unenforceable.


This decision confirms that municipal ordinances control over contracts between parties.  Even though the prior landlord expressly approved the short term rentals, the new landlord was able to evict the tenant after she failed to comply with the 10-day notice provided.


This case is another strike on Airbnb.  Between court decisions and cities continually passing ordinances that limit, tax, restrict or all-together ban short term rentals, Airbnb and similar providers are facing an uphill battle.

Moreover, the tenant here could have remained in the property had she stopped listing the premises on Airbnb after receiving the notice to quit, however her decision to continue the short term rentals was her downfall.

To learn more about the legal issues surrounding short-term rentals, including how to determine if you can list your property on Airbnb and how to find local & city restrictions on short-term rentals, check out our recent webinar: Real Estate Law in the Sharing Economy.

Chen v. Kraft (2016) 243 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 13


In 2004, Ms. Brown borrowed $450k and secured that loan with a deed of trust against her property in Oakland, California.  The beneficiary under that deed of trust was Washington Mutual Bank, F. A.

WAMU failed in 2008 and the FDIC sold WAMU’s assets to JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.  This sale included Ms. Brown’s loan and was memorialized in a September 2008 Purchase and Assumption Agreement (P&A Agreement).

In March of 2011, the foreclosing Trustee, California Reconveyance Company (“CRC”) recorded a Notice of Default for Chase stating Brown was in arrears for slightly over $60k.  One month later, Chase Bank assigned the deed of trust to Deutsche Bank.  CRC remained the trustee.  Two months later, CRC recorded a notice of sale.

In January of 2012, Brown filed the first of three lawsuits challenging the foreclosure.  She voluntarily dismissed the first two.  Each time, CRC republished its notice of sale.  Finally, in July 2013, CRC executed a third notice of sale and two days later Brown filed her third lawsuit challenging this foreclosure sale.  In her complaint, she alleged that the deed of trust assignment to Deutsche Bank was invalid and the foreclosure proceedings were initiated without authority.

Additionally, after the defendants successfully demurred to the complaint, she amended it to allege various other allegations, including violation of the California Homeowner Bill of Rights (HBOR), which had gone into effect Jan. 2013.

The defendants again demurred.  The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed the case.  The trial court found that Ms. Brown’s causes of action for cancellation of the instruments, foreclosure by entity lacking a beneficial interest (allegedly Deutsche Bank) and that the declaratory relief sought failed for three reasons: 1) the causes of action were barred as a matter of law because there is no recognized cause of action that allows a borrower to test the legal authority of the entity commencing foreclosure in a preemptive action, 2) Brown lacked standing and 3) Brown’s allegation that Deutsche Bank lacked authority to enforce the deed of trust was contradicted by matters subject to judicial notice (the P&A Agreement).

THE DECISION:  AFFIRMED. The appellate court decision began by reciting the overview of California’s non-judicial foreclosure process and then briefly looked at the issues of standing and whether a borrower can bring a preemptive action to challenge an entity’s (usually a lender or trustee) authority to foreclose.  The Brown court noted that the Supreme Court in Yvanova expressly declined to address the validity of preemptive actions.  Then, the Brown court went on to state that under Yvanova’s determination that a borrower has standing in the post-foreclosure timeframe that it is likely that a borrower in a pre-foreclosure challenge would have sufficient injury to confer standing.  However, the Brown decision made it clear that even in noting those two issues of standing and preemptive actions, it was affirming the lower court’s decision on separate grounds.

Specifically, the Brown court found that nowhere in the briefing did Brown “present any reasoned argument…” that the P&A Agreement should be interpreted any differently than how it is written, wherein in plainly transfers WAMU’s assets to Chase.  Clearly, this case turned on the record before the court and Brown’s facts lacked any viability as compared with those facts found in Yvanova.  In Yvanova, the entity purportedly transferring its assets had long ago gone through a bankruptcy and been dissolved, leading to a inference of forgery.  Brown’s mere allegation was not sufficient to counter the plain reading of the P&A Agreement itself.

Why this case is important:  The Yvanova decision had been long awaited, but in the end was a very narrow holding.  Subsequent decisions suggest that Yvanova offered little guidance to issue of borrower preemptive actions.

COMMENT:   This opinion placed great weight on the P&A Agreement, which was part of the record as a matter of judicial notice.  Prudent practitioners know that most judges would be reluctant to take notice of the actual contents of the agreement and instead limit the judicial notice to the existence of the record itself.  Here, the opinion clearly analyzed the context of the P&A Agreement and transfer wording.  This is essentially a fact finding and usually beyond the scope of judicial notice.  At one point in the opinion, the appellate court noted that Brown had failed to challenge trial court’s determination that the P&A was proper subject for judicial notice, and went on to include a footnote.

Brown v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee, etc. ., et al Opinion filed May 9, 2016 (First District A144339)


Beginning in early 2015, the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) introduced a new program, NextGen, which rerouted flight paths in the South Bay and Peninsula in an effort to improve airport infrastructure, air traffic management, and provide nearly $133 billion in benefits to airports, airlines, and passengers.  NextGen was implemented with the intention to drastically advance airport technology, resulting in more efficient travel.  With NextGen, information is transmitted to pilots via satellite, keeping them more up to date about their own positions.  This has led to an increase in the amount of airplane traffic and has caused pilots to take more direct routes, which in turn has led them to fly over new areas.  Some of these new areas include Bay Area homes, resulting in San Francisco International Airport receiving more than 150,000 noise complaints in 2015.

Meanwhile, the California real estate market experienced one of its best years in recent history, with home sales increasing by 7.6 percent over the prior year.   There were 13,030 sales of homes in Santa Clara County in 2015, while the median home price in San Mateo County increased 16.8 percent.  This spike in home purchases coupled with the implementation of NextGen has caused a record number of airplane noise complaints to be recorded.  With home prices being as high as they are, new and old residents alike in the Bay Area expect to be able to enjoy their home without the incessant interruption of airplane noise.  Airplane noise has been reported to occur over some South Bay and Peninsula homes as often as every two minutes during peak hours.

For over a year, thousands of residents have voiced their complaints to local airports to no avail. On April 4, 2016, U.S. representatives Anna Eshoo, Jackie Speier, and Sam Farr announced the formation of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals, a committee formed to combat the effects of the NextGen program. The committee consists of 12 elected officials who are working with stakeholders to mitigate the increase in airplane noise and to find solutions to help ease the intrusion into the lives of residents in the South Bay and Peninsula.

Currently, the acceptable noise level under federal law is 65 decibels, near the level of sound a vacuum cleaner emanates. In comparison, the NextGen program has caused airplane noise in some areas around the South Bay and Peninsula to be equivalent to someone vacuuming your home every two minutes.  Congresswoman Anna Eshoo has urged the FAA that the federal level for acceptable noise is outdated and is not in line with the true effect on South Bay and Peninsula communities.

At an event sponsored by our firm and hosted by the Silicon Valley Association of REALTORS® on May 6, Congresswoman Anna Eshoo was the featured speaker and discussed the committee’s current plans in combating NextGen. With the FAA being required to provide survey information on the noise effect on communities by the end of the year and proposals being made by the committee, there is hope in sight. Community meetings have been scheduled by the committee to allow residents to hear the proposals being made by the committee, and to contribute their input. Meetings are scheduled to be held in Santa Cruz on May 25, San Mateo on June 15, and Santa Clara on June 29 of 2016.

Many realtors in the area are concerned due to the real estate law implications the NextGen program has. The potential for a decline in property value and disclosure issues concerning the increase in airplane noise is at the forefront of realtors’ minds all over the Bay Area. Airplane noise is something that certainly should be disclosed, and our firm regularly assists and counsels realtors and sellers on disclosure duties. A revamp in the entire airplane business that results in airplane noise every two minutes in some areas is certainly something that a buyer should be made aware of.  Stay tuned to see if the FAA will be forced to reconsider their NextGen program.


As predicted, El Niño arrived in California and brought some much needed precipitation with it.  This past winter brought the most rain California has had in quite awhile, with many major reservoirs in better shape than they have been in years.  Despite the warm welcoming El Niño received, there is a downside to the wet winter.  Following El Niño is another weather phenomenon by the name of “La Niña”.  La Niña, which means The Little Girl in Spanish, is the climate condition that typically follows an El Niño period.  La Niña usually consists of cooler than normal temperatures and below average precipitation, opposite of what El Niño brought to California this winter.

This can be concerning for Californians for reasons other than an ongoing drought.  With spring being the busiest time of year for the real estate market, dry weather conditions can pose some issues to buyers and sellers alike.  Spring climate provides many aesthetic benefits to realtors in marketing a home, but it also can hide potential pitfalls.  During El Niño, there was a spike in water related disputes in real estate transactions, with the increase in rainfall highlighting defects in the property that were not previously exposed due to the drought.   The decrease in rainfall presented by La Niña can make the discovery of water related defects difficult once again.

Of the water related disputes we’ve encountered this winter, roof leaks were the most common.  During a dry period, leaky roofs are not a focus of the parties involved in a transaction, which comes back to bite everyone involved when heavy rainfall occurs.  There are some preventative measures to detect these defects during this spring and summer.

The first step would be to do an outdoor inspection of the roof.  Unless a roof is brand new, an inspection is highly recommended, whether you are purchasing or currently own your home.  Many causes of leaks are apparent by the condition of the exterior of the roof, including deformed shingles, excess cement buildup, broken gutters, cracks or tears in the roof itself, and even chimney damage.  Spending money now on a quality roof inspector can save thousands on litigation, repairs, and stress.  It is also important to get roof inspections periodically if you are a homeowner.  Commonly, real estate purchase agreements include a roof certification, providing the buyer with a 2-3 year life expectancy for the roof.  Beyond that guarantee, it is up to the buyer to have periodical inspections to ensure their roof is in good condition.

Regular roof inspections can also benefit homeowners when they decide to sell their home. California law requires sellers to complete a form called a “Transfer Disclosure Statement”, which discloses known material defects or issues with the home that may affect the buyer’s decision.  Roof defects are considered material and must be disclosed to a prospective buyer.  Failure to disclose a defective roof to a buyer may cause the seller to be responsible for the cost to repair the roof, the buyer’s attorney fees, and other miscellaneous fees depending on the level of concealment by the seller. Regular roof inspections will make the seller aware of defects and allow them ample time to cure those defects prior to the sale of their property.

The second way roof damage can be detected is from the inside of the home.  Given that El Niño provided California with a steady flow of rainfall, there is no doubt that defective roofs were exposed.  A leaky roof is not always immediately apparent however.  Obvious signs of leakage include peeling paint, ceiling damage, and moisture stains.  Potential buyers and current homeowners should take it a step further and look into their attic this spring and summer.  Sometimes leaks in the roof are absorbed by the insulation in the attic, preventing leak detection for months.  Another less obvious sign is an increase in your energy consumption.  The accumulation of moisture in your home due to the leak can cause a decrease in ventilation.

These are just some of the things to keep in mind now that El Niño is over. With the potential of La Niña and water damage concerns being neglected, we may see an increase in disputes in the future.  Being more conscious of water related issues during the dry months may save you a substantial amount of time and money when the rain comes again.


Margaret Foster (“Foster”) lived in the same apartment in San Francisco for more than 40 years.  In 2011, her building was bought by W.J. Britton & Co., Inc. (“Britton”).  As part of new management, Britton sent each tenant a new set of house rules.  In those rules, the tenants were required to share the back yard equally, maintain their own garbage service, keep all of their personal property inside, and use a laundromat instead of washing clothing in their sinks or tubs in their apartment.  Britton notified each of the tenants at the complex that they were required to accept the new house rules or they could give 30 day notice to move out.  Previously, Foster’s tenancy included garbage service, two parking spaces, personal space in the backyard, additional storage space outside her unit, and the right to use her porch for laundry and storage.  Foster refused to sign the new house rules and instead filed a lawsuit stating that Britton could not evict Foster for refusing to agree to the new rules and that San Francisco’s rent control ordinance, specifically Rule 12.20, barred any eviction of a tenant refusing to agree to new house rules.  In response, Britton contended that the Rent Board’s rule conflicted with California law and the Rent Board’s authority.  The Rent Board joined the lawsuit.

At the trial court level, the Court ruled in favor of Foster finding that California law did not preempt the Rent Board’s rent control ordinance.  Specifically, the Court noted that Rule 12.20, which provides that a landlord may not evict a tenant for refusing to accept new obligations or changes, is not preempted by California law.  As such, Britton could not require Foster to sign the new rules nor evict her for refusing to sign them.  Britton then appealed the ruling.


The California Court of Appeals for the First District affirmed the trial court’s ruling and held that California has traditionally held that substantive rent control ordinances may be a permissible exercise of a city’s authority.  The Court noted that this was different from rent control ordinances that create procedural barriers, such as requiring a landlord to obtain a certificate from the city prior to evicting a tenant.  Here, since Rule 12.20 does not require additional procedural actions from the landlord, the state laws do not preempt it and Rule 12.20 is therefore valid.


This decision provides guidance to cities on how to craft rent control ordinances that will survive challenge.  The decision reaffirmed that cities have the power to enact substantive rent control ordinances that restrict the grounds that a landlord may evict a tenant for.  However, a city will have great difficulty in defending an ordinance that delays the eviction process or makes a landlord jump through more hoops.  As for San Francisco landlords and tenants, this decision makes clear that changing a lease will be very difficult without agreement of all of the parties involved.


San Francisco landlords need to be very careful on the terms of the lease.  As changing the lease in the future is very difficult, they should spell out all of the terms of the lease and all of the services provided by the landlord at the outset.  This likely applies in other rent control cities also.

Foster v. Britton, 242 Cal.App.4th 920 (2016)


The Bay Area is known worldwide for a multitude of things, including being the hub of technological advancements, cultural diversity, and championship sports teams.  One of the more recent phenomena however doesn’t have to do with any of those things.  Currently, two Bay Area cities claim two of the top three spots for the costliest housing markets in the U.S. and Canada.  San Francisco is the costliest, with a median home price listed at $1,085,000.  Not far behind that is San Jose, ranking third with a median home price of $700,000.

This substantial rise in the cost of purchasing a home in the Bay Area has made the dream of buying a home an unrealistic fantasy for many residents.  Despite the economy being in a stage of recovery, and the workforce growing, employees are simply not making enough to meet the steep financial demands of homeownership.  The rise in the median price has led to a significant shortage of affordable housing, forcing a large percentage of residents to rent or to commute long distances to work.

In an effort to combat the effects of rising housing prices, the City of San Jose passed an ordinance that requires residential developments to designate 15 percent of homes as affordable housing when the development consists of 20 or more units.  The ordinance requires that 15 percent of the development has to be built to be sold at below-market prices.  These prices are determined by the City for buyers with qualifying income levels. Should the development wish not to participate, they would have to pay into a city housing fund.  Developments that satisfy this requirement will receive economic incentives, including a density bonus, reduction in parking and set-back requirements, and financial subsidies and assistance from the city.

In order to qualify, your household earnings cannot amount to more than 120 percent of the area median income for Santa Clara County.  The City of San Jose’s website has a chart designating their income and rent limits, and can be found at  For an example, a household consisting of two individuals who make $114,800 or less, would qualify for a 2 bedroom unit under the ordinance.

This ordinance is intended to alleviate the shortage in affordable housing and allow lower income families to become homeowners in the San Jose area, a situation that has been unattainable for most during the last couple of years.  Some of you may wonder what would stop people that qualify from buying one of these lower income units and reselling at market value, diminishing the intention of the ordinance.  Legislators anticipated this loophole and drafted the ordinance with regulations that require that the unit remain affordable.  All transfer documents, agreements, promissory notes, and etc. must be recorded on the chain of title subject to the ordinance.

San Jose’s Inclusionary Housing ordinance has not been met with open arms despite it being an effective tool in mitigating the shortage of affordable housing in the area.  Many claim that this ordinance will cause alternate housing prices to rise, causing a chill in housing development due to these newly enforced regulations.  One of the leaders of the resistance is the California Building Industry Association (CBIA).  CBIA brought suit against the City of San Jose in 2010, challenging the constitutionality of the ordinance, claiming that the city’s ordinance should be reviewed under a heightened level of scrutiny.  The City argued that the ordinance was within their police power to enforce land-use regulations and that they had met the deferential standard required under such.   The trial court ruled in favor of CBIA, determining that the ordinance was unconstitutional, rejecting the City’s argument.

On appeal, the trial court’s ruling was reversed, and the appellate court’s ruling was later affirmed by the California Supreme Court.  Both courts ruled that the ordinance is within the City’s police power and deemed that the ordinance is constitutional.  Further illustrating the importance of this ordinance, the CBIA petitioned to have the case reviewed by the United States Supreme Court.  On February 29, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to the law and upheld the lower courts’ ruling.

Considering the current climate of the real estate market, this is one of the most important and city-friendly rulings in providing relief for the current lack of affordable housing.  The ordinance has a major impact, not only on San Jose, but all over the Bay Area.  This ruling could encourage neighboring cities to adopt a similar ordinance and cause a widespread change in the housing development world.  Stay tuned to see how developers and potential purchasers adjust to this precedent set by the Supreme Court.

(California Building Industry Assn v. City of San Jose (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1373)

{ 1 comment }

Post image for Court Makes it Easier to Strip Mortgages

Court Makes it Easier to Strip Mortgages

Henry Chuang

by Henry Chuang on March 30, 2016

in Mortgage Issues

Robert and Darlene Blendheim (“Blendheim”) were borrowers who obtained two mortgages from HSBC Mortgages Services in the amounts of $347,900 and $90,474.  In 2007, the Blendheims filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection and obtained their discharge.  The day after receiving their discharge, they filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection in order to restructure their debts.  Primarily, they were focused on the two loans secured against their home.  In the second bankruptcy, HSBC filed a proof of claim for the first mortgage.  The Blendheims challenged the claim and HSBC did not respond.  Accordingly, the bankruptcy court issued an order disallowing HSBC’s claim.  Strangely, after being served with the order, HSBC did not object to the order, but instead requested not to be further notified about the bankruptcy proceeding.  After the order, the Blendheims moved to void the lien secured against the property as the underlying claim had been disallowed by the bankruptcy court.  Over the opposition of HSBC, the bankruptcy court agreed with the Blendheims and ordered that the lien would be cancelled at the completion of the bankruptcy.  While the Court noted that it was hesitant to cancel the lien, which essentially would prevent HSBC from foreclosing or otherwise collecting on the loan, it noted that the statute required this conclusion.  As part of the second bankruptcy, the Blendheims submitted plans to reorganize their debt.  HSBC challenged those plans stating that the Blendheims’ plan should provide that HSBC’s first lien would be reinstated at the completion of the plan arguing that bankruptcy law does not allow a permanent cancellation of the lien if the debtors do not obtain a discharge.  The bankruptcy court disagreed and eventually confirmed a plan.  HSBC then appealed to the district court.

At the district court level, the Court affirmed all of the bankruptcy court’s orders.  First, it noted that HSBC was untimely on its appeal of the order denying HSBC’s proof of claim and on the order voiding the lien.  Second, the Court found that a debtor can permanently avoid a lien even if the debtor is not entitled to a discharge.  It noted that it would be a harsh result if a debtor faithfully performed all of the debtor’s obligations under the plan to just see the debtor’s debts “spring back to life.”  HSBC once again appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.


The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court and bankruptcy court’s ruling and held that HSBC’s first mortgage had been correctly voided and that the Blendheims could permanently void the lien.  The Court held that while there had been previous cases where a lien was not voided because the creditor had failed to timely file a proof of claim, those cases were not relevant because the statute explicitly provides that a lien cannot be voided because a creditor did not file a proof of claim.  Here, HSBC filed a proof of claim and it was successfully objected to by the Blendheims.  Since HSBC had timely filed the claim, the exemption did not apply.

Further, the Court found that the lien could be permanently stripped even if the Blendheims were not eligible for a discharge in the Chapter 13 bankruptcy.  The Court clarified that there were four different ways for a Chapter 13 bankruptcy to be resolved:  a conversion to a different type of bankruptcy, a dismissal of the case, the issuance of a discharge for the debtor, or the closing of a bankruptcy case.  Previously, the appellate court had implied that the only successful way to conclude a Chapter 13 bankruptcy matter was for a discharge to be issued.  However, the Court held that a Chapter 13 bankruptcy could be successfully concluded by a debtor successfully completing an approved plan even if no discharge is granted.  As a discharge is not required for a bankruptcy to be successfully concluded, a debtor did not need to be eligible for a discharge to permanently void a lien.


The Court has given its approval for “Chapter 20” bankruptcies.  A Chapter 20 bankruptcy is where a debtor first files for a Chapter 7 bankruptcy to obtain a discharge and then follows with a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, generally to strip liens off of underwater properties.  The reason that debtors had been filing Chapter 20s is because a debtor was not allowed to perform strip liens off their primary residence in a Chapter 7 or reorganize their debts in order to catch up.  While there previously had been concerns that a Chapter 20 was de facto bad faith and would not be permitted, this decision indicates that courts have given their blessings for debtors to pursue a Chapter 20.


HSBC’s actions in this case were largely inexplicable.  No good reason was ever provided by HSBC for their failure to take appropriate action in protecting the first mortgage.  Given HSBC’s negligence, it was unsurprising that the courts had little sympathy for HSBC’s position.  Further, by clarifying the legality of Chapter 20s, the court has provided debtors with new tools on managing and reorganizing their debts.


HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Blendheim, 803 F.3d 477 (9th Cir. 2015)


Seller is Refusing to Close Escrow? Know Your Options

by Ashlee Adkins February 29, 2016 Broker/Realtor
Thumbnail image for Seller is Refusing to Close Escrow? Know Your Options

If you’ve recently purchased a home, or are looking to buy, you know how tough the market is.  The competition is intense, with there being more buyers than sellers.  Finally, your offer on your “dream home” has been accepted. The paperwork is drafted and signed by both parties, life couldn’t be better. That is, until […]

Read the full article →

Court Rules in Favor of Borrowers Suing for Wrongful Foreclosure

by Henry Chuang February 26, 2016 Foreclosure
Thumbnail image for Court Rules in Favor of Borrowers Suing for Wrongful Foreclosure

Tsvetana Yvanova (“Yvanova”) was a borrower who obtained a loan from New Century Mortgage Corporation (“NCMC”) in 2006.  In 2007, NCMC filed for bankruptcy and in 2008, its assets were liquidated.  In 2011, several years after NCMC was liquidated, NCMC executed an assignment of the deed of trust to Deutsche Bank National Trust (“Deutsche”) while […]

Read the full article →

Supreme Court Finds California’s Anti-Deficiency Statute Protects Borrowers After a Short Sale

by Julia Wei February 9, 2016 Collection Disputes
Thumbnail image for Supreme Court Finds California’s Anti-Deficiency Statute Protects Borrowers After a Short Sale

THE DECISION:  The Supreme Court of California held that Code of Civil Procedure Section 580b prevents lenders from pursuing borrowers after approving the borrower’s short sale. Previously, the case law had been clear that after a foreclosure sale, the lender was deemed to have taken their “one action” in collecting on the loan and therefore […]

Read the full article →