Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

Pat is correct. A lot of cases are free on Google. (It would be cool to have the Queen doodle to place instead of Google, oh well) But don't just google.
go to:
scholar.google.com
once there, click the circle beforeLegal opinions and journals.
then type the case name in the search box. You will almost always immediately, and without cost, get a copy of the case.
d
________________________________
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2012 3:36 PM
Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] In re Humberto Cedano, 2012 DAR 5531 (5/1/12) - BAP # CC-11-1189 HKiMk
The last time I looked the BAP had all their decisions on their site except the one I was looking for. Google 9th circuit bap.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me.
Pat
Patrick T. Green
Attorney at Law
Fitzgerald & Green
1010 E. Union St. Ste. 206
Pasadena, CA 91106
Tel: 626-449-8433
Fax: 626-449-0565
pat@fitzgreenlaw.com
From:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Kirk Brennan
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 1:42 PM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] In re Humberto Cedano, 2012 DAR 5531 (5/1/12) - BAP # CC-11-1189 HKiMk
I'm having a hard time pulling this up on PACER. Finding the main case but not the BAP case. Is there a special procedure for pulling up BAP cases?
Thanks,
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 9:42 AM, wrote:
9th Cir. BAP affirms Judge Mund's dismissal of wrongful foreclosure adversary proceeding brought by debtor in chapter 13 case. Good discussion of when tender required , MERS authority, standingof substitute trustee to foreclose and 2923.5 notice.
Eric
Law Office of Eric Alan Mitnick
21515 Hawthorne Boulevard, Ste. 1080
Torrance, California 90503
(310) 792-5864; 792-5866 (fax)
MitnickLaw@aol.com
Although this email and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any computer system into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by the sender for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use.
The information contained in this email message and any attached files may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think that you have received this email message in error, please notify the sender by reply email, and delete the email message you received and all of the attached files.
Kirk Brennan, esq.
California Law Office, P.C.
www.calibankruptcysite.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this message.
TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion letters containing the signature of a director.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

I am beginning to think that the FDCPA letter sent to the client before the NOD is filed needs to be objected to, so they have to go to judicial foreclosure.
Catherine Christiansen
________________________________
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 2, 2012 6:26 PM
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] In re Humberto Cedano, 2012 DAR 5531 (5/1/12) - BAP # CC-11-1189 HKiMk
It would be interesting to know the history (or lobbyists in support) of the nonjudicial foreclosures. When reading this case, it appears that we have waived any right to challenge who has the right to foreclose. And even admits that partial compliance is the low standard the Trustees and Lenders need to reach in order to go forward with the foreclosure. Hard to sue after you lost the house.
"nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings are intended to be
less expensive and more quickly concluded, therefore [t]he
recognition of the right to bring a lawsuit to determine a
nominees authorization to proceed with foreclosure on behalf of
the noteholder would fundamentally undermine the nonjudicial
nature of the process and introduce the possibility of lawsuits
filed solely for the purpose of delaying valid foreclosures.
Gomes, 192 Cal. App. 4th at 1155"
Hence - no real reason to have a Judge determine if there ever is compliance....so long as they are inexpensive and quickly concluded....
________________________________

The post was migrated from Yahoo.