The dismissal of a borrower’s fourth foreclosure delay lawsuit is affirmed based on res judicata and a lack of merit in the borrower’s securitization arguments. In a short, tartly worded opinion, the court affirms dismissal of a borrower/attorney’s fourth lawsuit trying to stall foreclosure of his defaulted home loan. It holds plaintiff had no viable HBOR claim because he admitted receiving a proposed loan modification which he failed to accept by the deadline for doing so. The complaint alleged no facts to support its assertion that Chase didn’t succeed to the rights of the original lender, WaMu, in buying WaMu’s assets from the FDIC. The fraud claim was based solely on a typographical error in spelling the plaintiff’s name. Apart from these specific defects, the suit was the fourth alleging the same cause of action (i.e., the same primary right to be free of foreclosure) and so was barred by the merger and bar aspect of res judicata.
California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6 (Yegan, Acting P.J.); January 24, 2017; 2017 WL 345040