The California Court of Appeals recently held that a mortgage (the “Mortgage”) recorded simultaneously with a home equity line of credit (the “HELOC”) had priority and was not entitled to any surplus proceedings from the foreclosure of the HELOC, despite the fact that the HELOC’s instrument number was prior to that of the Mortgage. SeeMTC Fin., Inc. v. Nationstar Mortg., 19 Cal. App. 5th 811 (Ct. App. 2018).

Summary: A California appellate court has held that a lender that allegedly directed its borrower to default on her loan in order to qualify for a home mortgage modification may be held liable in tort for its mishandling of her application, because the lender exceeded the role of a conventional lender.  [Rossetta vs. CitiMortgage, Inc., 2017 Westlaw 6422567 (Cal.App.).]

Like any other business, law firms sometimes fail. While the failures of large law firms are well-publicized, smaller law firms can be just as or even more susceptible to failure, as the unexpected departure of the firm’s most profitable partner can be devastating to a small firm.

Adding to the growing split of authority among California’s various state appellate courts, and among various federal courts in California, the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Third Appellate District, recently held that a loan servicer may owe a duty of care to a borrower through application of the “Biakanja” factors, even though its involvement in the loan does not exceed its conventional role.

A USA Today Network investigation revealed that some port trucking companies have used legal loopholes, shell companies, and bankruptcies to escape judgments by labor court judges. The ongoing investigation reveals that some port trucking companies serving top retailers use such tactics to take advantage of drivers.

SUMMARY

The Bottom Line

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of an adversary proceeding without leave to amend, holding that:

(a) the debtors failed to state a claim for wrongful foreclosure under California law;

(b) the debtors failed to state a claim for breach of contract or breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing because they were not third-party beneficiaries of the pooling and servicing agreement;

The Bottom Line

A bankruptcy judge in the Eastern District of California recently issued a decision that is sure to raise appellate eyebrows.