Saterbak v. JPMorgan Chase Bank | PETITION FOR REVIEW | The Saterbak opinion, if it stands, will create confusion because, in effect, it permits a void assignment to authorize a foreclosure when this Court held that a void contract had no legal effect at all.
SUPREME COURT CASE NO. COURT OF APPEAL CASE NO. D066636
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
LAURA SATERBAK, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., et al., Defendants and Respondents. After a Published Opinion by the Court of Appeal Fourth Appellate District, Division One Case No. D066636PETITION FOR REVIEW
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page GLOSSARY OF TERMS 6 ISSUE PRESENTED 7 WHY REVIEW SHOULD BE GRANTED 7 STATEMENT OF THE CASE 9 A. The First Amended Complaint and the demurrer. 9 B. The Court of Appeal decisions 12 C. This petition for review is timely 14 ARGUMENT 14 A. This Court should grant review to establish a uniform set of rules to govern both preforeclosure and postforeclosure cases. 14 B. Review should be granted to resolve the conflict between Gomes v. Countrywide and Saterbak. 17 C. Review is necessary because the court of appeal opinion is inconsistent with Yvanova’s ruling that a void assignment can never have any legal effect. 19 D. Contrary to what the court of appeal believed, this Court did not decide that its Yvanova holdings could never apply to a preforeclosure lawsuit. 21 E. California public policy, as expressed in the foreclosure statutes, allows a pre-foreclosure lawsuit. 22 CONCLUSION 25 CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT 26 PROOF OF SERVICE 27 [...] Second, as this Court held in Yvanova, 62 Cal.4th at 929, a void assignment is void from the beginning. It does not change from voidable to void merely because a foreclosure sale occurs. The Saterbak opinion, if it stands, will create confusion because, in effect, it permits a void assignment to authorize a foreclosure when this Court held that a void contract had no legal effect at all. Yvanova, 62 Cal.4th at 929. ...