Default Featured image

Ibanez and Its Effects on California

Foreclosure by Peter N. Brewer, Esq.

On January 7, 2011, the Massachusetts Supreme Court, in U.S. Bank National Association v. Ibanez, held that a foreclosure sale was void if the lender could not prove that it had the power to foreclose at the time of the foreclosure.  In Ibanez, the court held that the lender failed to prove that it had the right to foreclose at the time of the sale and it questioned whether it ever obtained the right to foreclose.  Like California, Massachusetts has a foreclosure statute that allows lenders to foreclose without court approval.  In the Ibanez case, the bank foreclosed on the property and a year later, sued to clear title and validate the foreclosure sale.  During that suit, which the homeowner did not contest, the lender was unable to demonstrate that it had received an assignment of the deed of trust prior to the foreclosure, or in fact, that it ever received a valid assignment.  While this case is a big win for debtors in Massachusetts, its impact in California is likely to be minimal.

First, as a matter of law in Massachusetts, the controlling document as to ownership of the loan is the deed of trust.  The opposite is true in California, where the promissory note is the controlling document.  In Ibanez, the Court noted that the lenders were able to show that they held the promissory note.  As such, if the same facts occurred in California, the Court would likely have upheld the foreclosure.

Second, the Massachusetts Court set an incredibly low standard for lenders.  It stated that it was only seeking some document that showed an assignment of the Deed of Trust by the original lender and that the assignment did not even need to be recorded.  Any showing by a lender that it was the owner of the note should be sufficient, even if the Ibanez holding is adopted in California.  It seems unlikely that lenders will continue to make the same mistakes that they have in the past with the sloppy recordkeeping.

It will be interesting to watch whether California follows Massachusetts’s lead in this area.  If California does rule that the foreclosures are void, it would make it substantially easier for Plaintiff’s to overcome the Tender Offer rule.  (See our article on Foreclosure Litigation for a thorough analysis of the issues)

Practice Notes – If you are a bank, this ruling should not have a substantial impact as it merely requires some documentation that the foreclosure was proper.  If you are a homeowner, while this may lead to setting aside the foreclosure, it will not grant you the home free and clear of the loan.  The lender would merely have to foreclose again.

Latest Posts

Marijuana & Real Estate

Navigating the Unstable World of Real Estate and Cannabis in California

by Ashlee D. Gonzales, Esq. on June 25, 2018

Marijuana legalization in California is here, but the fact that the substance is still considered illegal at the Federal level is causing some confusion and hardships for growers and sellers. Learn about how to navigate the unknown areas in attorney [more]

Legal Update, Real Estate Law

Recreational Pot In 2018: High-Times Or A Buzz-Kill For California Real Estate?

by Adam Pedersen, Esq. on November 29, 2017

California is set to roll out new guidelines implementing the voter-mandated legalization of recreational marijuana use and production in January of 2018.  At the same time, cities and counties are scrambling to implement their own regulations before the state rules [more]

Landlord/Tenant Disputes

Progress Report on Rent Control Initiatives in Silicon Valley

by Ashlee D. Gonzales, Esq. on November 21, 2017

Few topics have drawn more heated discussions throughout the Silicon Valley real estate industry than the ever-changing and increasing rent control efforts happening all across the region. From 2011 to 2016, the median wage in San Francisco, Santa Clara, and [more]