May 27, 2014
California Court Rejects Improper Pooling and Servicing Agreement Argument Brought by Plaintiffs
The court in deciding Sollenne v. United States Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 2013 U.S. Dist., (S.D. Cal., 2013) dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims.
Plaintiffs alleged three causes of action: 1) quiet title; 2) declaratory relief to determine the validity of the deed of trust on the date the note was assigned and to determine if any defendant has authority to foreclose; and 3) injunctive relief to stop further collection activity, including the sale of the property.
Plaintiffs’ desired remedies also include a request for an order compelling the defendants to transfer or release legal title and any alleged encumbrances, and possession of the property to plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs listed the following deficiencies which they contended rendered invalid any security interest in the deed of trust: 1) the separation of title, ownership and interest in the note and deed of trust; 2) the lack of assignments to or from the intervening entities when the loan was sold; 3) the failure to assign and transfer the beneficial interest in the DOT to Defendants in accordance with the PSA; 4) the failure to endorse, assign, and transfer the note to USBNA in accordance with the PSA and California law; 5) that there were no assignments of beneficiary or endorsements of the note to each intervening entity; and 6) Defendants violated terms of the PSA.
After considering the plaintiffs’ arguments, this court dismissed the claims premised upon the securitization of the loan and violations of the PSA as well as the plaintiffs’ remaining claims.
| Permalink
