I read the opinion. I’m glad to see it came out the way it did and the suit was thrown out in its entirety. Obviously, Gomes has a right of appeal but, like you said, he may be running out of $$ for legal expenses. He will also increase his exposure to pay more of Countrywide/MERS/ReconTrust’s expenses if he does so. I don’t see the CA Supreme Court taking it on.
It’s way past time to get this NOD/NOS/auction show on the road. There is really no excuse for lender delay. They are just wasting months, even years playing “modification” games with borrowers who will only default within months again, due to being so underwater that there is no way out in their lifetimes, as the only “modifications” that are occuring are for repayment terms. These “sitting duck” lenders are wasting all of our time. By their inaction, they are causing the market to remain stagnant, buyers to remain on the sidelines fearing a new “bottom,” and sellers who can’t even get an even return after =>10 years of ownership and after making modest improvements out-of-pocket.
Just like the opinion repeatedly stated:
California’s nonjudicial foreclosure scheme is set forth in Civil Code sections 2924 through 2924k, which “provide a comprehensive framework for the regulation of a nonjudicial foreclosure sale pursuant to a power of sale contained in a deed of trust…
and
The deed of trust that Gomes signed states that “Borrower [i.e., Gomes] understands and agrees that MERS holds only legal title to the interests granted by Borrower in this Security Instrument, but, if necessary to comply with law or custom, MERS (as nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns) has the right: to exercise any or all of those interests, including, but not limited to, the right to foreclose and sell the Property . . . .”
Borrower Gomes agreed to those provisions when he executed his purchase money trust deed. He cannot now come back and state otherwise.
