Glaski Deplublication Denied
Glaski v. Bank of America, Banks’ Request for Depublication Denied by Calif. Supreme Court – CA law firms, including United Law Center, helped fight depublication
In dramatic fashion, a ruling by a five judge panel of the California Supreme Court on Wednesday denied the request of the five major banks to have the decision in Glaski v. Bank of America (5th Dist. Ct. App. No. F064556) depublished. Two of the seven judges recused themselves, for reasons unknown. While the banks could have attempted to appeal the controversial Glaski decision, they feared a ruling upholding Glaski by the Supreme Court, and instead chose to seek depublication, and lost.
The impact of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision is enormous, giving irrefutable authority to homeowners who are facing foreclosure or who’ve already been foreclosed on, to seek damages for wrongful foreclosure. Stephen Foondos, founder of United Law Center (ULC) in Roseville, Calif. and one of the attorneys who argued against depublication, has led his team to fight the banks for wrongful foreclosure since 2008. ULC has been leveraging this case to help thousands of Calif. homeowners fight back against their mortgage lender, and win because the banks don’t want to fight against Glaski in a jury trial. Since Glaski was published, ULC has seen the rate and value of case settlements increase dramatically. Cases wherein “Glaski” is alleged may include principal reductions between 30-70%, interest rates fixed at 2-3% for 30 years and a cash award upwards of six figures.
“The banks, fearing the appellate process, tried depublication and failed. While the banks argued that the Glaski decision could have a catastrophic impact on the banking industry, it’s a major victory and real step forward in the long legal fight to provide the real victims of the foreclosure crisis, the homeowner, true relief,” explained attorney Foondos. “We’re ecstatic about the Calif. Supreme Court’s decision. It’s yet another indication of the direction in which the law is turning in this banking brawl, directly in favor of California homeowners.”
The Glaski decision stands for the simple proposition that if an entity wants to collect on a debt in California (or foreclose on a mortgage), that entity must own the debt. Further, if such an entity is claiming ownership by way of an assignment, that assignment must be valid. A bank’s assignment of a promissory note to a Mortgage-Backed Security Trust (a “Securitized Trust”) is generally referred to as “securitization.” Pursuant to the New York law under which the Securitized Trust was created and Federal Securities Law, the transfer of Mr. Glaski’s note was required to occur within 90 days of the closing date of the Securitized Trust commonly referred to as the “90 day Rule.” If this securitization occurs beyond the 90-days, it is considered void at its inception.
Therefore, because the Securitized Trust did not own Mr. Glaski’s note, it could not legally foreclose, and hence, the foreclosure was wrongful. The California Court of Appeals agreed. And while Glaski is viewed as an outlier in Federal Courts, “The Court’s decision to deny the banks’ request for depublication of Glaski affirms that it is the law of the land in California, and we have been granted the right to sue in California Superior Court,” says Foondos.
It is estimated that 70-80% of all California homeowners who financed a home between 2003 and 2008 had their note securitized. “Accordingly, in light of the Glaski decision, approximately 1.3 million homes may have been wrongfully foreclosed upon and have grounds to sue their original lender for damages,” explained Foondos.
You can find the original release here.