California Civil Code 2924g(c)(2) says that a new Notice of Sale is
required after 365 days.
The case that says it is not a stay violation to give notice of a sale
postponement is Mason-McDuffie v. Peters (9th Cir. 1996) 101 F.3d. 618.
There is a good explanation of both issues in the CEB treatise on
California Mortgages, Deeds of Trust and Foreclosure Litigation.
Clifford Bordeaux
Bordeaux Law, P.C.
790 E. Colorado Boulevard, 9th Floor
Pasadena, CA 91101
T: 626-405-2345 / F: 626-628-1820 E:
cliff@bordeauxlaw.com
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Jason Wallach wrote:
>
>
> Link, what is the citation for the 12 month period after which re-noticing
> and re-publishing the notice of sale is required?
> Thanks.
> Jason
> Jason Wallach
>
jwallach@gladstonemichel.com
>
>
>
> On Jan 14, 2014, at 3:23 PM, Link Schrader wrote:
>
>
>
> I would agree that a routine postponement would not be stayed. However,
> an actual sale would be a violation of the automatic stay and the title
> company knows it. The lender does it this way because if the case is
> dismissed within 12 months of the notice of default, then the sale can
> proceed at the next noticed date. If more than 12 months passes from the
> date of the notice of default, then that notice would have to be recorded
> again.
>
> I would reassure the client that any sale conducted in violation of the
> automatic stay would be void, not just voidable.
>
> *Link Schrader, Attorney*
>
> Law Office of Link W. Schrader
>
> P.O. Box 3723, Tustin, CA 92781
>
> Office: (714) 542-5922; Mobile/Text: (310) 413-6924
> Fax: (310) 878-4158;
www.schrader-law.com
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> *This communication and any files transmitted with it contain information
> which is confidential and may be privileged and exempt from disclosure
> under applicable law. It is intended solely for the use of the individual
> or intended recipient. You are hereby notified that any use, dissemination
> or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
> received this communication in error, please notify the sender. Thank you
> for your cooperation.*
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Larry Webb wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I have a recent Ch 11 case with a foreclosure stay. Title Company was
>> notified by fax and phone call of the bankruptcy on the day of filing and
>> the original sale date was postponed. Client (very upset) received a
>> post-petition dated notice of sale date of 02/04/2014. I have sent a
>> 362(a)(1) letter to the sale trustee and notified opposing counsel by email
>> who gave me the following reply;
>>
>>
>>
>> *Routine postponements are not stayed and are done by the title company
>> as a matter of course.*
>>
>>
>>
>> My experience is that all notice of sale are stayed, am I missing
>> something? Opposing counsel is a very experienced CH 11 attorney.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best Regards
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Larry Webb
>>
>> Law Office of Larry Webb
>>
>> 484 Mobil Ste 43
>>
>> Camarillo, Ca 93010
>>
>> 805-987-1400
>>
>>
http://www.thousandoaksprobate.com/
>>
>> Email
Larry@webbklaw.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> *Link Schrader, Attorney*
> Law Office of Link W. Schrader
> Mail: P.O. Box 3723, Tustin, CA 92781
> Office: 106 W. 4th Street, Suite #308, Santa Ana,
> CA 92701
> Office: (714) 542-5922; Mobile/Text: (310) 413-6924
> San Diego: (619) 952-8342; Fax: (310) 878-4158
>
www.schrader-law.com
> ____________________________________________________________
> __________________________________________
> This communication and any files transmitted with it contain information
> which is confidential and may be privileged and exempt from disclosure
> under applicable law. It is intended solely for the use of the individual
> or intended recipient. You are hereby notified that any use, dissemination
> or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
> received this communication in error, please notify the sender. Thank you
> for your cooperation.
>
>
>
>
>
California Civil Code 2924g(c)(2) says that a new Notice of Sale is required after 365 days.The case that says it is not a stay violation to give notice of a sale postponement is Mason-McDuffie v. Peters (9th Cir. 1996) 101 F.3d. 618.
There is a good explanation of both issues in the CEB treatise on California Mortgages, Deeds of Trust and Foreclosure Litigation.
Clifford BordeauxBordeaux Law, P.C.790 E. Colorado Boulevard, 9th FloorPasadena, CA 91101T: 626-405-2345 / F: 626-628-1820bordeauxlaw.com
The post was migrated from Yahoo.