Attorney Patricia Rodriguez: California Foreclosure Overview

Attorney Patricia Rodriguez has been defending homeowners from wrongful foreclosure for over a decade.  Located in Los Angeles, California, Ms. Rodriguez has been appointed to serve as a legal expert and provider of expert testimony on unlawful detainers and foreclosures in Los Angeles Superior Court.  She has been on the foreclosure forefront since the housing market crashed, and recognizes the legal strategies most-likely to gain traction, while avoiding arguments that have been proven ineffective.
Ms. Rodriguez provided the following overview of California foreclosure law.  Click here to contact the Rodriguez Law firm, or set up a free consultation.

California Foreclosure Law Overview

By Attorney Patricia Rodriquez


The Process of Non-Judicial Foreclosure In California begins with the Notice of Default (NOD): The Bank is giving the Homeowner notice that according to the Bank Homeowner owes the bank and hasn’t paid. This can be recorded after 90 days straight of non payment.
The Notice of Trustee Sale (NoTS): This is notice to the Homeowner that the bank is electing to sale the property under the allege authority of the Deed of Trust using the power of sale clause. This can be recorded 90 days after the NOD. The bank must set the sale out at least 21 days from the date of the NofTS.
The Trustee Sale Date: This is the actual date of the sale. The Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale is what is recorded after the sale is conducted. It can be sold to a third party or revert back to the alleged beneficiary (who claims the right to sell it under the Deed of Trust power of sale clause).
Delaying Trustee Sale Dates can be done through filing a bankruptcy (although it is not appropriate if this is the sole purpose of the bankruptcy and not restructuring or liquidating the debt)., litigation and recording a lis pendens, a restraining order, and informal negotiations with the bank directly.
Advertisements of Trustee Sale Delays – lots of companies advertise through the mail they can postpone sales. Be cautious as these can be companies that will deed of a percentage of your deed of trust to others and then file bankruptcy for that other individual(s) and then include your property in that bankruptcy. This is bankruptcy fraud and can cause you significant harm ultimately.

3 Responses

  1. Whenever I’ve compared “Patricia” to other law firms, I’ve always felt that she is the most well organized and methodical about her workflow and strategies for winning, while being as realistic as she can be, about the current state of California’s Superior Court System.

    California’s state courts are BROKEN, but we must continue to fight on!

    Years ago (wow, already 20 years) … the CA courts were doing a pretty fine job, compared to now. For instance: the “Unlawful Detainer Court” is the equivalent of a “small claims court” when speaking of jurisdiction. (limited-jurisdiction)

    Twenty years ago, the “Judge” would take the bench and announce that, “if you are a defendant today facing eviction following a non-judicial foreclosure, and, you dispute any part of that non-judicial process, I am powerless but to dismiss your case, because I have lost subject-matter-jurisdiction, and, invite the plaintiff to file an action for title.”

    Fast-forward to today: the “Judge” takes the bench and announces that, “if you are here today facing eviction, following a non-judicial foreclosure, the banks have spent a lot of money to change the application of law in California, and, all they have to do is utter a few magical words and I am powerless but to rule in their favor, understand? Good, now, let’s get started. Bailiff, call the first case.”
    (this is an exact quote from Judge Gary Kreep, in San Diego, CA)

    Today, if the non-judicial foreclosure is disputed by the defendant, the judge immediately gets upset and says, “You can’t argue title issues in this court, it’s not allowed, so you must file for wrongful-foreclosure or quiet-title, in order to [try] and stop your eviction from proceeding.” (which is false, because [t]hat court just lost subject-matter-jurisdiction)

    The onus is on the “homeowner” today, to sue to apply her constitutional rights for due-process, but, who can afford ($300,000) to defend your own home ownership … and, pay the mortgage when due?!?

    In the face of this amount of judicial adversity, and, the gross misapplication of the rule of law today, it makes it extremely difficult for “Patricia” (or, anybody else) to win these cases.

    So, what’s the answer for her or for us?!?

    Does “Patricia” continue to fight-the-good-fight, until the [proper] rule of law returns, or, does she give up too, and, allow the system to literally swallow pro se litigants?

    The one thing I’ve never heard “Patricia” say is, “Well, you know you’re going to lose in court, right?” (I’ve been told that very response when I’ve interviewed “other” lawyers)

    It does suck, in California courts, but, the rule of law is beginning to come back, so, I’m still hopeful.

    God bless us all … with unlimited money for retainers!! (LOL … be safe)

  2. There has to be better firms out there!

  3. Patricia blames the homeowners for their litigation. Not right.

Contribute to the discussion!