From Our Friends at Living Lies Weblog


URGENT REQUEST! California Court attempting to Bury Decision!!! Don’t allow Guliex v. PennyMac to go unpublished! Act Today!
7h ago

California Fifth Court of AppealsGuilexguilex v pennymac

Unfortunately it is not uncommon for courts to skirt the rules in order to protect the banks if they can get away with it. It is up to California attorneys and homeowners nationwide to contact California’s Fifth District Appellate court and request that the Guliex case be published. YOU almost didn’t have this opportunity because it appears the court attempted to end the submission window six-days early !

We need all HOMEOWNERS and FORECLOSURE ATTORNEYS NATIONWIDE to HELP get this case published!

Homeowners, PLEASE write the Court at the address below TODAY (or use the template) and request that Guliex v. PennyMac be published. Attorneys and registered pro se litigants can file electronically through the court’s TrueFiling.com system.

Letters should be mailed TODAY or possibly MONDAY if you live in California to be received by the Tuesday, August 1st deadline.

Electronic filings are accepted up until Tuesday.

Originally the court had issued an order stating that no more letters requesting publication of Guliex would be accepted. Apparently after public outcry, the court clerk stated they would now accept requests to publish until Tuesday, August 1st, 2017.

On July 12th, 2017 the California Fifth Appellate Court issued an unpublished opinion in Guliex v. Pennymac Holdings, a case that may potentially benefit homeowners nationwide who are litigating illegal trustee sales and Chain of Title issues.

The Rules of the Fifth Appellate Court permit 20 days for attorneys and citizens to request publication of the case by submitting letters to the court. The court originally incorrectly listed the deadline as July 27th when the deadline should have been August 1st, 2017. Thus, the court clerk shut down requests for publication SIX days prematurely.

The Appellate court also issued the opinion that the Guliex decision, “does not establish a new rule of law, nor does it meet any of the criteria set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 8.1105(c).”

WHAT? REALLY? The decision likely doesn’t meet the court’s publication criteria because it actually benefits the Homeowner, not the Bank for a change!! Apparently Homeowners fighting foreclosure and hostile courts must also fight judicial CENSORSHIP if they prevail, in addition to the other abuses and injustices they confront at every judicial juncture.

Unfortunately, this is one more attempt to silence victims of fraudulent foreclosure and the attorneys who defend them. The Guliex case is important because the court actually complies with the rule of law it established in its own jurisdiction.

Common sense decisions regarding wrongful foreclosure are infrequent and typically eroded or overturned. Yvanova, one of the finest decisions on the importance of standing, was decimated by the Saterbak ruling. A favorable precedent that adheres to the rule of law must be allowed to stand. We must be vigilant and our voices united.

Please write a simple letter, or copy the template below and mail it TODAY requesting that the court publish the Guliex decision. The request for publication should not exceed 2 pages.

(Hat tip to Charles Cox for composing the content of this letter). Please edit as desired.

Fifth District Court of Appeal
Request for Publication, Case No. F073142
Attn: Honorable Brad Hill, Presiding Justice
2424 Ventura Street
Fresno, CA 93721

Subject: Request for Publication

Guliex v PennyMac Holdings LLC

Court of Appeal No F073142 filed July 12, 2017

Opinion cited as 2017 Cal App Unpub Lexis 4742

REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION OF OPINION

Dear Justices of the Fifth Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal,

Pursuant to California Rules of Court (“CRC”), Rule 8.1120(a) et seq., I am writing to respectfully and timely request certification for publication of the Court’s entire Opinion, or in the alternative, partial publication of Parts I. et seq. and II.B., for the case captioned above.

My interest in this request relates to the engineered attacks upon home ownership by unauthorized intermediaries engaged in self-help that is California’s non-judicial foreclosure process; and the application, interpretation, clarification and addressing of the facts in this instant case by the Appellate Court and its distinguishing other holdings involving legal issues of continuing public interest as well as clarification of certain specifics related to this field of litigation as the Opinion(s) may apply to other cases more readily once published.

The Opinion meets the standard for publication as authorized by CRC, Rule 8.1105(c) which provides that an opinion of a Court of Appeal or a superior court appellate division-whether it affirms or reverses a trial court order or judgment-should be certified for publication in the Official Reports if the opinion:

(1) Establishes a new rule of law;

(2) Applies an existing rule of law to a set of facts significantly different from those stated in published opinions;

(3) Modifies, explains, or criticizes with reasons given, an existing rule of law;

(4) Advances a new interpretation, clarification, criticism, or construction of a provision of a constitution, statute, ordinance, or court rule;

(5) Addresses or creates an apparent conflict in the law;

(6) Involves a legal issue of continuing public interest;

(7) Makes a significant contribution to legal literature by reviewing either the development of a common law rule or the legislative or judicial history of a provision of a constitution, statute, or other written law;

(8) Invokes a previously overlooked rule of law, or reaffirms a principle of law not applied in a recently reported decision; or

(9) Is accompanied by a separate opinion concurring or dissenting on a legal issue, and publication of the majority and separate opinions would make a significant contribution to the development of the law.

I contend the Court’s well-reasoned Opinion contained therein accordingly satisfy sub-sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 as referenced above more specifically related to Sections I. sub-sections B, C, and D.

Section I.B. The Opinion clarifies that a homeowner “…has standing to challenge a foreclosure by an unauthorized entity.” Further, the Opinion clarifies that although a superior court may take judicial notice of documents that have been publicly recorded at a county recorder’s office, the “disputed or disputable” factual content of recorded documents is inadmissible hearsay. This meets the standard for publication per CRC, Rules 8.1105(c)(2, 3, 5, 6 and 8).

Section I.C. The Opinion establishes a new rule on the analysis of a chain-of-title as reflected documents publicly recorded at a county recorder’s office; as well as the analysis of each link in the chain-of-title as to whether a document can establish an unbroken or perfect link in the chain. The Opinion further clarifies that a plaintiff must allege facts that show the defendant who invoked the power of sale was not the true beneficiary. This meets the standard for publication per CRC, Rules 8.1105(c)(1, 2, 4, 6 and 8).

Section I. D. The Opinion establishes a new rule by distinguishing the two illegal types of wrongful foreclosures: procedural irregularities v. unauthorized foreclosure. This is an important opinion for these cases not previously popularized by other opinions clarifying the question of whether and/or when a homeowner must allege tender and/or prejudice. This meets the standard for publication per CRC, Rules 8.1105(c)(1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 8).

Based on the foregoing, I respectfully request this Honorable Court publish the above referenced Opinion.

Respectfully submitted,

We encourage readers to post copies of the letters mailed to the court in the comments section of this post. Just to keep the courts honest!

Thank you to California Attorney Charles Marshall, Eva Sutton and Celia Salazar for their efforts to publish this important opinion.

Technology « Above the Law: A Legal Web Site – News, Commentary, and Opinions on Law Firms, Lawyers, Law School, Law Suits, Judges and Courts

 

Technology

Stop Online Piracy Act Wants Biglaw Support; Biglaw Says, ‘Aw, Hell No’

By Christopher Danzig

  Unless you drowned yourself     in a bathtub full of eggnog over the holidays, hopefully you are at least superficially aware of the Stop Online Piracy Act.

The House of Representatives is considering the bill, known as SOPA for short, that people fear will destroy the Internet as we know it.

Last week, Elie and I were “debating” the insidiousness of SOPA on Gchat. Our conversation went something like this:

Elie: SOPA is terrible.
Chris: It’s pretty much the worst thing ever.
Elie: It’s f***ing disastrous.

Elie and I aren’t the only ones upset. The Internet has whipped into a tizzy over the act. We mentioned it last week in Non-Sequiturs. And I wrote about it back in November. But the story has kept picking up speed. Reddit has gone mad over the bill. Just before the new year, a bunch of Biglaw firms got mistakenly dragged into the fray.

Keep reading for a primer on SOPA and its sister Senate bill, the Protect IP Act. And see why a bunch of Biglaw firms were unintentionally listed as supporters after the jump.…

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Stop Online Piracy Act Wants Biglaw Support; Biglaw Says, ‘Aw, Hell No’”

Technology « Above the Law: A Legal Web Site – News, Commentary, and Opinions on Law Firms, Lawyers, Law School, Law Suits, Judges and Courts