Charles Marshall Scores Major Victory in Cal. 4th DCA on Chase-WAMU Fraud

This was no easy task. And this is exactly the ruling that all the nay-sayers said could not happen. But it did.


We reverse because her complaint alleges facts that could support a legal theory of recovery if she were given leave to amend.


But Masoud’s final basis for her title claims—that WaMu sold her deed of trust to unknown third parties three years before Chase assumed its assets—cannot be so easily dismissed. In sustaining the demurrer, the trial court relied on the P&A agreement between Chase and the FDIC to conclude that Chase obtained the rights to Masoud’s deed of trust. But the legal meaning of the P&A is that Chase obtained whatever assets WaMu possessed as of September 2008. It does not exhaustively list what assets those were.


Assuming (as we must at this stage) that the allegations of the operative complaint are true, it would mean that Chase was never WaMu’s successor in interest as to Masoud’s deed of trust and that at most, it attempted to transfer an asset it never owned to US Bank in 2011. As a result, according to Masoud, a party with no legitimate claim to her deed of trust foreclosed on her house.


This is precisely the kind of injury envisioned in Yvanova, which held that a borrower has standing to challenge a foreclosure sale ordered by a party with no authority to do so. (Yvanova, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 943.) This court has further clarified that the protections of Yvanova apply only in the postforeclosure context—exactly the position Masoud now finds herself in. (Saterbak, supra, 245 Cal.App.4th at p. 815.) And on at least one occasion, this court has applied Yvanova in reversing a judgment of dismissal after a sustained demurrer when a borrower alleged her deed of trust was sold twice by the same party, rendering the second sale void and the foreclosure that followed unlawful. (Sciarratta v. U.S. Bank National Assn. (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 552, 565.)


other than the original 2005 deed of trust that references WaMu as the lender, the judicially noticeable documents are all from 2008 or later. They shed no light on whether WaMu, after funding the loan in 2005, assigned the beneficial interest to another party or other parties later that same year such that it had no interest to transfer in 2008.


defendants appeared to argue that even if WaMu sold the beneficial interest in 2005 (so that there was no asset to transfer to Chase as part of the 2008 P&A agreement), it nonetheless retained rights as the servicer on the

loan.7 They suggest these servicing rights transferred to Chase in 2008 such that Chase was entitled to foreclose in its capacity as the loan servicer regardless of which entity held the beneficial interest.


even if we could entertain the argument we would reject it. The complaint alleges that US Bank claims to hold the beneficial interest and the right to foreclose, which is fully consistent with defendants’ representations in their brief as well as the judicially noticeable documents in the record. The issue is not Chase’s role as the loan servicer, but the proper identification “of the party enforcing [the] debt.” (Yvanova, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 937.) Yvanova makes clear that “􏰀􏰁􏰂he borrower owes money not to the world at large but to a

particular person or institution, and only the person or institution entitled to payment may enforce the debt by foreclosing on the security.” (Id. at p. 938, italics added.) Here, Masoud has alleged that US Bank wrongly claimed to be the entity to which the deed of trust had been assigned. (Ibid. [borrower “is obligated to pay the debt . . . only to a person or entity that has actually been assigned the debt”].) At this point it remains a factual question as to which persons or entities held the beneficial interest in the deed of trust at the time of the foreclosure. That Chase may have inherited servicing rights or responsibilities from WaMu does not erase Masoud’s injury if a party with no beneficial interest in her loan directed foreclosure on her house.


Liberality in permitting amendment of pleadings, even where there have been earlier opportunities, is required by this state’s well-established public policy favoring resolution of cases on their merits wherever possible. (See, e.g., Douglas v. Superior Court (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 155, 158.)

8 Responses

  1. @Summer completely agree. Illegal flippers main targets but agencies and officials should start listening to honeowners with cases like this and protect innocent buyers but not at the expense of wronged homeowners.

  2. Worth to report.

    America in last 20 years has the worst, most cynical slavery masqueraded as “home ownership”

    People don’t know they are slaves, they think they “buy” something.

    People work very hard to bring 10-20% down payment to “buy” a house – which in fact is a gift to slave owners which will be confiscated.

    People are traded and sold , in whole and in parts every day without their knowledge and consent – and nobody is disclosing to them on which terms they are sold, to create more profits for Investment banks

    If a house is confiscated to “compensate the “Creditor” – why “Creditors” do not return down payment and all payments made by the homeowner? If they got “their” merchandise back – they must refund the money. They want to feed one mouth from ten plates.

    People deliver their wealth for free to investment banks – plus pay interest for delivering their wealth.

    People pay banks for already stolen homes since about 100% “mortgages” in America is an internally defaulted debt – , its just a matter of time when another slave will be kicked out, without any protection under the law.

    Banks get bailout after bailout, plus tax reduction – from taxes they do not pay.

    And NOBODY on the top concerned about it.

    If the top cannot do anything to protect many, it will explode from the bottom.

    In an interview with CNN over the holiday weekend, senior White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett said that the nation’s “human capital stock is ready to get back to work” after the country ground to a halt in an effort to stop the spread of the coronavirus. Hassett didn’t note

    that large portions of the HUMAN CAPITAL STOCK never stopped working — because they couldn’t afford to — while those with financial capital have reaped the benefits of their wealth and the federal response as the death toll in the United States ticked near 100,000.

    As grocery store employees and frontline health care workers succumb to the virus, a study by the Institute for Policy Studies found that

    American billionaires saw their wealth increase by nearly half a trillion dollars over two months as the virus took hold in the country.

    One part of the coronavirus relief package passed by Congress was a tax code change that resulted in savings predominantly going to those who earn $1 million or more. The New York Times reported that billions in bailout money meant for struggling health care providers went to large hospital chains with substantial financial reserves.

    Banks EARNED??? $10 billion in fees administering the small-business relief loans while giving their favored clients what amounted to concierge service to get to the front of the line for bailout funding.

  3. Excellent work Charles and Neil! Looking forward to digesting the opinion!!!

  4. It’d be nice if Charles Marshall refunded me the $750 fee he took to file paperwork requesting to unseal some docs in an old case in October of 2018… He did nothing for a month and then told me to go away because he spent the money “thinking” about the filing of the request… but there’s really nothing you can do to get satisfaction from a lawyer that’s out to screw you…

  5. Wait until illegally foreclosed lawful owners of homes will start to sue new buyers of foreclosures for quiet title and possession of stolen property based on void judgements .

    This will be a lot of fun. Specially when people who purchased illegal foreclosures will start asking judges why they allowed this practice at the first time.

    Maybe 2-3 years from now people will learn the truth.

  6. Sure looks like a beginning crack in the dam. ( our note/deed was
    one of the thousands that seemingly disappeared when WAMU did
    the same. Then WFargo skipped the WAMU chpt. and self-assigned
    the Deed to themselves along with W & foist a F C attempt on us in the summer of ‘011’. Ugly story, same old , same old ” real party in interest ” likely does not exist ( if one ever did after good ol’ Transland up and disappeared ) . We have been paying ever since and have no idea of the money trail of our payments. As I said, same old, same old.
    Many thanks to Marshall, Garfield for hard work and continued deligence in this fraud on the American consumer.

  7. I keep saying I beat Chase and their WaMu shell game on a credit card complaint in court as a pro Se. It should be no different argument for the Fraudclosures. Also, it’s all UNSECURED DEBT !!!!

  8. Good work CM. Bad record keeping was punished….cudos again.

Contribute to the discussion!