In case you haven’t seen the Glaski decision from California yet, I’m embedding it here.
A five judge panel of the California Supreme Court has denied the request of five major banks to have the Glaski decision depublished. The banks were apparently afraid to appeal the decision because they feared it being upheld. Instead, they asked the California Supreme Court to depublish it, and lost.
Publication of a decision means that the case can be cited and used in other arguments. If you’ve ever heard of Westlaw or LexisNexis, these companies create volumes of published cases, called reporters.
These days, most of the research conducted is via the internet, but many firms had law libraries full of reporters (like the books in the photo, above). They were expensive to publish volumes, but legal research is still expensive whether you do it from books or use their online portals.
For Californians, Glaski creates an opening for homeowners to pursue the banks for damages for wrongful foreclosure.
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 … read more . . .