Mendoza v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

A home loan borrower lacks standing to challenge a post-closing transfer of his loan into a securitized trust.  Like Saterbak v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 245 Cal. App. 4th 808  (2016)  and Yhudai v. Impac Funding Corp., 1 Cal. App. 5th 1252 (2016), this decision holds that a borrower lacks standing to challenge a post-closing transfer of his loan into a securitized trust because, contrary to the holding in Glaski v. Bank of America, N.A., 218 Cal. App. 4th 1079  (2013), such an ultra vires act is merely voidable, not void, under applicable New York law.  The decision also rejects an argument that a post-closing transfer is void as violative of federal tax law.

California Court of Appeal, Third District (Raye, P.J.); December 13, 2016; 6 Cal. App. 5th 802

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s