Reversed Wrgfl Forec and Dec Relief Claims CA Appeal - Aug 16, 2013: "Monica Graham" monicagraham@ymail.

com

This must be a pretty strong case if the request to de-publish was denied along with Supreme Court review. Again, another case that disagrees with lower court's tender requirement rather agreement with !efendants" tender requirement#.

http$%%westregion.com%Title&'()nsurance&'(*ages%Cases%+pinions%*feifer,v,Countrywide.pdf
*feifer v. Countrywide -ome .oans !oc/et Sup.Ct. !oc/et '00 Cal.App.1th 0'2( - 0st !ist. A033(40# 0'%03%0' *etition for review by Cal Supreme Ct. 5 !epublication 6equest !78)7! '%'(%03 9+67C.+S:67$ 0. A trustee is not sub;ect to, and does not have to comply with the requirements of, the 9air !ebt Collection *ractices Act because processing a non-;udicial foreclosure is not a debt collection activity under the Act. '. <here a deed of trust incorporates by reference the servicing requirements of -:!, including a face-to-face interview, the lender had to comply with the servicing terms prior to conducting a valid non;udicial foreclosure. 3. A tender of the amount owed was not required in this case because a# the tender rule applies only in cases see/ing to set aside a completed sale, rather than an action see/ing to prevent a sale in the first place, and b# the lender allegedly violated laws related to avoiding the necessity for a foreclosure. 1. *laintiff's default does not bar their claim that the lender cannot proceed with the foreclosure prior to complying with the -:! servicing requirements. 2. =orrowers may see/ to en;oin a lender from proceeding with a foreclosure based on the lender's failure to perform a -:! servicing requirement, but a private right of action for damages does not e>ist. 9ri Aug 0?, '(03 00$30 am *!T# . *osted by$ @Ai/e Aaunu@ mi/emaunuBymail.com <+<CCC +ut of same district as Dlats/i... !o you thin/ lower courts will get tired of being reversedE Aug 0?, '(03 0($01 AA, @Aonica Draham@ FmonicagrahamBymail.comG wrote$ This must be a pretty strong case if the request to de-publish was denied along with Supreme Court review. Again, another case that disagrees with lower court's tender requirement rather agreement with !efendants" tender requirement#. http$%%westregion.com%Title&'()nsurance&'(*ages%Cases%+pinions%*feifer,v,Countrywide.pdf *feifer v. Countrywide -ome .oans http$%%westregion.com%Title&'()nsurance &'(*ages%Cases%+pinions%*feifer,v,Countrywide.pdf !oc/et http$%%appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov%search%case%doc/ets.cfmEdistH05doc,idH0II(31?5doc,noHA033(40 Sup.Ct.!oc/et http$%%appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov%search%case%doc/ets.cfmE distH(5doc,idH'(31'2(5doc,noHS'(441(G '00 Cal.App.1th 0'2( - 0st !ist. A033(40# 0'%03%0' J*etition forK review by Cal Supreme Ct. 5 !epublication 6equest !78)7! '%'(%03J 9+67C.+S:67$ 0. A trustee is not sub;ect to, and does not have to comply with the requirements of, the 9air !ebt Collection *ractices Act because processing a non-;udicial foreclosure is not a debt collection activity under the Act. '. <here a deed of trust incorporates by reference the servicing requirements of -:!, including a face-to-face interview, the lender had to comply with the servicing terms prior to conducting a valid non;udicial foreclosure. 3. A tender of the amount owed was not required in this case because a# the tender rule applies only in cases see/ing to set aside a completed sale, rather than an action see/ing to prevent a sale in the first place, and b# the lender allegedly violated laws related to avoiding the necessity for a foreclosure. 1. *laintiff's default does not bar their claim that the lender cannot proceed with the foreclosure prior to complying with the -:! servicing requirements. 2. =orrowers may see/ to en;oin a lender from proceeding with a foreclosure based on the lender's failure to perform a -:! servicing requirement, but a private right of action for damages does not e>ist.