First of all, if you have been foreclosed upon you can seek damages, read this...
WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE IS A FUNGUS THAT IS SPREADING IN CALIFORNIA AND ARIZONA

The first sentence of 2924(a) Every transfer of an interest in property, other than in trust, made only as a security for the performance of another act, is to be deemed a mortgage,
Other than in trust your honor, means (Mortgage Loan Trusts do not qualify as mortgages)the deed of trust is neither a (i) mortgage with power of sale nor (ii) security as cited in CC 2920-2953.

Title 12 is codified in the National Currency or National Bank Act of March 3, 1864 Under Title 12, Section 24, Paragraph 7. It tells you quite clearly, that banks can only loan money, not credit otherwise it goes beyond the powers of National Banking Association. if you read your credit application it says that they’re loaning you credit. Now, if you go into 226.23 of TILA, Truth in Lending Act or Regulation Z, Section H it says, when a loan goes into foreclosure you could rescind the loan transaction (i) is understated by no more than $35; or (ii) is greater than the amount required to be disclosed, which was true upon all my properties, which in turn I did rescind all my loans in 2009, under the belief, like you currently hold, there was actually a mortgage. Problem being, even through I did find out in 2009 that there were over $660k of under-disclosed interest charges legally entitling me to execute Regulation Z as a matter of law – It did not really matter because there never existed a mortgage, or a security interest to begin with.

TILA is not a Res Jurisdicia thing, many courts have upheld that, especially in the Law of the Land Jesinoski ruling in 2015 which means my state case is irrelevant as both the Jesinoski and the Yvonova were not in effect at the time of those pleading, dispite these severity of the conflict of vested interest held in the outcome of my prior case against prior defendants. To the extent the court of appeals has ruled res judicata may apply ONLY TO those identical causes of action pled in the former action against the identical defendants in that action under the doctrine. New theories against New Defendants or even prior defendants don't fall into that rubric.


TO SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS CODES 2923 AND 2924 IN CALIFORNIA

Remember this is only MY Understanding, I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY, I am simply sharing information under the Freedom of Information act as responsibly as I can. YOU MUST RESEARCH THIS if you are going to fight beck. Most attorneys will tell you CA courts rule only under 2923 and 2924. So have some insider info.

First if you have been foreclosed upon - you have defenses available on this site. This link is also a
good site to review because you will need to know what to specifically defend against. In California tenants have 60 days and former owners 3 days before an eviction can be started. Under the new federal law Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 tenants have the right to 90 days notice and in cases where there is a long term lease the lender will be subject to the lease. ie. if you have a 5 year lease the lender will not be able to put you out! Title VII sec. 702

Civil Code 2924 g. (c)(1) allows for postponement of the Trustee sale for up to 365 days. The trustee shall postpone the sale in accordance with any of the following:(A) Upon the order of any court of competent jurisdiction. (B) If stayed by operation of law. (C) By mutual agreement, whether oral or in writing, of any trustor and any beneficiary or any mortgagor and any mortgagee.(D) At the discretion of the trustee.

Here are your operations of law….

California Golf, L.L.C. v. Cooper, the Appellate Court held that the remedies of 2924h were not exclusive. They reversed the lower court and specifically held that provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code, UCC, Article 3 were allowed in the foreclosure context.

Under California Commercial Code 3301, a note may only be enforced if one has actual possession of the note as a holder, or has possession of the note, not as a non-holder, but with holder rights. Article 9 forces them to cough up this information. USE IT because they will use Article 3 - I hold a copy of the note therefore it is mine to enforce to try and bypass you in court.

There are two suits in the 5th circuit CA including mine, the Yvanova pro-se and Kestgar. The banks FAILED to place a no-publish on Glaski vs Banksters
You need to press these in court and use these to challenge a Notice of Default so look them up ASAP - Glaski vs. Bank of America opened the door here... and call foul under the Senate Bill because the foreclosing entity can reference the Senate Bill 1137 via the foreclosing entity directions by the banks via their own Attorney Foreclosure Handbooks, they can give this as a reason to stop foreclosure action by referencing the act as long as your are in a legal dispute in court.

CAL. CIV. CODE § 2924 (a)(6) No entity shall record or cause a notice of default to be recorded or otherwise initiate the foreclosure process unless it is the holder of the beneficial interest under the mortgage or deed of trust, the original trustee or the substituted trustee under the deed of trust, or the designated agent of the holder of the beneficial interest. No agent of the holder of the beneficial interest under the mortgage or deed of trust, original trustee or substituted trustee under the deed of trust may record a notice of default or otherwise commence the foreclosure process except when acting within the scope of authority designated by the holder of the beneficial interest.

CAL. CIV. CODE § 2924.19 (a) (1) If a trustee's deed upon sale has not been recorded, a borrower may bring an action for injunctive relief to enjoin a material violation of Section 2923.5, 2924.17, or 2924.18.
(2) Any injunction shall remain in place and any trustee's sale shall be enjoined until the court determines that the mortgage servicer, mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent has corrected and remedied the violation or violations giving rise to the action for injunctive relief. An enjoined entity may move to dissolve an injunction based on a showing that the material violation has been corrected and remedied.

CAL. CIV. CODE § 2924.19 (a) (1) If a trustee's deed upon sale has not been recorded, a borrower may bring an action for injunctive relief to enjoin a material violation of Section 2923.5, 2924.17, or 2924.18.


Under section 2923.1 (a) that the “mortgage brokers” who were breaching their fiduciary to consumers did not IN FACT have specula licensing under this section that clear references California Financial Code 22000 which requires special licensing to sell loans. The California Department of Real Estate did not make it mandatory to have proper licensing until Jan 31st 2010 (aka Mortgage Loan Originator Endorsement) where if you recall Cal Fin Code 22100 provides that “NO PERSON SHALL ENGAGE IN BUSINESS OF A FINANCE LENDER OR BROKER WITHOUT OBTAINING A LICENSE FROM THE COMMISSIONER” where on this loan I was in fact not a legitimately licensed broker who was privileged to sell predatory loans with very illegal RESPA and TIL violations as outlined in my personal case study and in these very loans that were further used to perpetuate fraud on the Securities and Exchange commission under the RIGGED LIBOR INDEX.

Further most of these trusts transferred these on these bifurcated notes were done so after the original lender abandoned the Deed of Trust.   Mers, in most all of these cases, took the Deed of Trust that was never transferred to them, then transferred them to the Banks, (which revoked their nominee status on title - if they were any kind of legitimate beneficiary they would have transferred it back into the trusts where the notes were securitied.  Meaning the original lender never transferred it into the trust itself.  They transferred the note to a a Structure Product servicer who transferred it to a Securities Corporation then transferred the note into a “trust”.    The holders of the trust are acting as the creditors, which is a conflict of interest and illegal as it pertains to a trust.  A Beneficiary cannot hold the Trust Deed and a “Creditor or Lender” cannot be a Trustee for the Loan.     

2924 (A)A statement identifying the mortgage or deed of trust by stating the name or names of the trustor or trustors and giving the book and page, or instrument number, if applicable, where the mortgage or deed of trust is recorded or a description of the mortgaged or trust property. Follow the recordings, most of the time these were recorded after the Beneficiary returned the deeds to the banks.

With Recon Trust gone, this is where they will most likely try to file a substitution of trustee, while they lay claims they are also your new creditor or lender. You will need to demand to know who your new “trustee is and get this in writing. You will need to challenge who gave them this assignment to prove that it was NOT a party of interest or a Holder in Due Course. SO now you will also need to fight the Notice of Trustee Sale that gets filed, as this will be from the “assigned” Trustee.

Under California Civil code 2923.6 (a) a servicer acts in the best interest of all party when it agrees to or implements a loan modification where the (1) loan is in payment default, and (2) anticipated recovery under the loan modification or workout plan exceeds anticipated recovery through foreclosure on a net present value basis. Even through these predatory loans made up over of 60% of these banks portfolios.

Countrywide admitted in the Stipulated Judgment entered into with the California Attorney General that they knew that sub-prime, predatory loans were in violation of National laws and public policy and were therefore, illegal and void. These loans forced debt-to-value ratio of up to one hundred percent (100%) on under disclosed interest rates, which is known as predictor of default. Wells Fargo Bank(the bank assigned as the Master Servicer on the trusts Countywide put these loans into) was assigned the party responsible for the assurance they would in fact offer distressed Pick-a-Payment affordable loan modifications including significant principle forgiveness’.

The Servicer makes “recommendations” to the “creditor” to foreclose. Meaning it is
impossible for the lender to act in the best interest to all parties if they are also the “holder" for a trust created to perpetuate fraud. PERIOD! 

AB 278 bill (The Homeowners bill of rights)
prohibits a mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent from recording a notice of default or, until January 1, 2018, recording a notice of sale or conducting a trustee’s sale while a complete first lien loan modification application is pending, so if you get a Notice of Trustee sale, go to NACA and submit a loan modification request.  (If/When they deny it, you just proved the above civil code.) This would be acting in their own best interest where all you need to do is be denied a modification to prove it beyond doubt in a court of law.

AGAIN - Under the securitizaton scheme, the originator was not allowed to touch the money and they do not get delivery of the note or the recorded mortgage.  The mortgage is unenforceable because it was paid off and incepted with such errors on both title, endorsements, and pooling and servicing agreements.  Literally, the Trustee for the Depositors (or investors who placed they money into these trusts) would have get the authorization from the Depositors of the trust because the Depositors are the only true Party of Interest and they would all have to act in unity. (There were thousands of them so good luck).  

This is Article 9 section §9-109. This article predicates that you
MUST prove up physical delivery and transfer acceptance and good and valuable consideration between all of the necessary intervening parties pursuant to both the deed of trust as well as the pooling and servicing agreements and master trust agreements.

You need to fight in order to
HOLD THE JUDGE TO THE LAW! CA JUDGES ARE NOT ENFORCING AB 278 because it is sunsetting Jan 1, 2018 and being replaced by the UCL Foreclosure Act designed to overwrite holder in due provisions across the nation, SO USE THIS WORD IN COURT OFTEN AND REPEATEDLY “OBJECTION”