SUPREME COURT CASE NO.

S218973

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

TSVETANA YVANOVA,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE CORPORATION, OCWEN LOAN
SERVICING, LLC, WESTERN PROGRESSIVE, LLC, and DEUTSCHE
BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.

After a Published Decision by the Court of Appeal

Second Appellate District, Division One
Case No. B247188

APPELLANTS REPLY BRIEF

ON THE MERITS
Richard L. Antognini, (CA Bar No. 075711)
LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD L.
ANTOGNINI
819 I Street
Lincoln, California 95648-1742
Telephone:
(916) 645-7278
E-Mail:
[email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Appellant
TSVETANA YVANOVA

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ISSUE PRESENED

INTRODUCTION

ARGUMENT

A. This Courts liberal standard of review for demurrers,

and the Courts framing of the issue presented, allows
Yvanova to raise new arguments.

B. Even if the Court can take judicial notice of the PSA, it

does not establish Yvanovas loan was legally assigned.

C. California law allows Yvanova to challenge the

purported assignment.

12

D. Yvanova can allege the assignment is void.

17

E. Yvanova does not have to allege prejudice to have

standing.

20

F. California public policy favors standing for borrowers.

25

CONCLUSION

27

CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT

28

-i-

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
California Cases
Alliance Mortgage Co. v. Rothwell, 10 Cal.4th 1226 (1995)

25

Angell v. Superior Court, 73 Cal.App.4th 691 (1999)

21

Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist., 2 Cal.4th 962 (1992)

Biakanja v. Irving, 49 Cal.2d 647 (1958)

25, 26

City of Stockton v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.4th 730 (2007)

Cockerell v. Title Ins. & Trust Co., 42 Cal.2d 284 (1954)

16, 17,
18, 26

Common Wealth Insurance Systems, Inc. v. Kersten,

40 Cal.App.3d 1014 (1974)
Connerly v. State of California, 229 Cal.App.4th 457 (2014)
Connor v. Great Western Savings & Loan Association,
69 Cal.2d 850 (1968)
Cooper v. Leslie Salt Co., 70 Cal.2d 627 (1969)
Evans v. City of Berkeley, 38 Cal.4th 1 (2006)
Fleet v. Bank of America, 229 Cal.App.4th 1403 (2014)

20

3
25, 26

3
7, 20
1, 4

Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 198 Cal.App.4th 256 (2011)

16, 21,
22, 23

Glaski v. Bank of America, 218 Cal.App.4th 1079 (2013)

18, 19

Herrera v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 196 Cal.App.4th 1366 (2011)
Jenkins v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 216 Cal.Ap.4th 497 (2013)

-ii-

9
14, 15,
18

Page
Joslin v. H.A.S. Insurance Brokerage, 184 Cal.App.3d 369 (1986)

Lo v. Jensen, 88 Cal.App.4th 1093 (2001)

21

Martinez v. Socoma Cos., 11 Cal.3d 395 (1974)

12

Mirkin v. Wasseman, 5 Cal.4th 1082 (1993)

25

Moeller v. Lien, 25 Cal.App.4th 822 (1994)

23

Munger v. Moore, 11 Cal.App.4th 1 (1970)

12, 13,
14

Neptune Society Corp. v. Longanecker, 194 Cal.App.3d 1233 (1987)

16

Powerine Oil Co. v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.4th 377 (2005)

15

Pro Value Properties, Inc. v. Quality Loan service Corp.,

170 Cal.App.4th 579 (2009)

18

Ram v. OneWest Bank, 223 Cal.App.4th 1 (2015)

Reichert v. General Ins. Co., 68 Cal.2d 822 (1968)

18, 21
22

Seidell v. Tuxedo Land Co., 216 Cal. 165 (1932)

StorMedia, Inc. v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.4th 449 (1999)

Washington Mutual Bank v. Superior Court, 24 Cal.4th 906 (2001)

13

Federal Cases
Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 271 (1873)

Rajamin v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 757 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2014)

-iii-

California Statutes
Civil Code section 1646

Page
15

Civil Code section 2923.4

24, 26

Civil Code section 2924 (a) (6)

23

Civil Code section 2924.17 (b)

24

Code of Civil Procedure section 472c

Federal Statutes
29 U.S.C. 860A (a)

19

29 U.S.C. 860D (a)

19
Law Review Article

Oppenheim, et al., Deconstructing the Black Magic of Securitized Trusts,

41 Stetson.L.Rev. 745 (2012)

-iv-

19

ISSUE PRESENTED
In an action for wrongful foreclosure on a deed of trust securing a
home loan, does the borrower have standing to challenge an assignment of
the note and deed of trust on the basis of defects allegedly rendering the
assignment void?
INTRODUCTION
In their Answer Brief (or Respondents brief), respondents attempt
to distract this Court by arguing New York law governs and by assuming
the crucial contracts were negotiated by parties with equal bargaining
power. But, California law controls the crucial issues and it does not favor
respondents. Equally important, the key contract, the Deed of Trust, was an
adhesion contract. Thus, the issues in this case must be seen from the
viewpoint of the average borrower. Because the Court should see it as a
consumer protection case, it must find the Deed of Trust, the crucial
consumer contract, gives the borrower clear notice that she can sue to
challenge respondents purported power to foreclose. She can, in other
words, allege standing.
The Court also knows this is a pleading casean appeal from a
demurrer. Appellate review of the sustaining of a demurrer tilts heavily in
favor of permitting a plaintiff to proceed on the merits . . . . Fleet v. Bank
of America, 229 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1414 (2014). This Court will not decide
standing for all time or for all cases. It merely will allow the plaintiff here,
1

TSVETANA YVANOVA (or Yvanova), the chance to allege standing.

She will have a chance to plead her case, which is only the first step in a
long litigation process. That is all she asks.
ARGUMENT
A.

This Courts liberal standard of review for

demurrers, and the Courts framing of the issue
presented, allows Yvanova to raise new arguments.

Respondents brief is littered with complaints that Yvanova has

changed her theories on appeal, that she has waived the arguments she
presents in her opening brief, and that she should not be allowed to amend
her complaint before this Court. (See, e.g., Respondents Brief, at pages
13-14, 35-36.) These complaints ignore decades of California law on leave
to amend and this Courts own action in drafting the issue presented.
On multiple occasions, this Court has stressed: The issue of leave to
amend is always open on appeal, even if not raised by the plaintiff. City of
Stockton v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.4th 730, 746 (2007); Aubry v. Tri-City
Hospital Dist., 2 Cal.4th 962, 970-971 (1992). The California Legislature
has also made this principle the rule. Section 472c of the Code of Civil
Procedure provides:

When any court makes an order sustaining a

demurrer without leave to amend the question as to whether or not such

court abused its discretion in making such an order is open on appeal even
though no request to amend such pleading was made. Based on these

rules, the courts of appeal hold that a plaintiff can assert new legal theories
and facts on appeal when seeking leave to amend:
Contrary to longstanding rules generally precluding a party
from changing the theory of the case on appeal a plaintiff may
propose new facts or theories to show the complaint can be
amended to state a cause of action, thereby showing the trial
court abused its discretion in not granting leave to amend.
The plaintiff must show in what manner he can amend his
complaint and how that amendment will change the legal
effect of his pleading. Connerly v. State of California, 229
Cal.App.4th 457, 460 (2014), quoting Cooper v. Leslie Salt
Co., 70 Cal.2d 627, 636 (1969) (citations omitted).
All Yvanova wants to do is take advantage of these cases by
demonstrating how new legal theories support the claims she made before
the trial court and the court of appeal. And, she wishes to use those
theories to provide a response to the issue presented crafted by this Court.
She asks for nothing unusual or unfair.
In addition, this Court reframed the crucial questions in this case by
drafting a single issue presented. Respondents did not address that issue, at
least not as crafted by this Court. So, in answering the question the Court
has posed, the parties should be able to rely on all appropriate legal
theories, whether argued before the court of appeal or not. And, this Court
granted review not just to resolve a dispute between the parties, but to set
down public policy on crucial issues in foreclosure law. It should establish
public policy only after receiving thorough briefs that consider every

relevant argument on the issue presented.

Yvanovas opening brief is

presented in that spirit.

Last, respondents ignore the reality of Yvanovas situation. As the
documents filed in the courts below show, Yvanova represented herself in
the trial court and before the court of appeal. As a lay person, with no legal
training or experience, she could not be expected to know all the relevant
legal theories or even the facts relevant to her case. Fleet v. Bank of
America, 229 Cal.App.4th at 1414. Yvanovas lack of experience or legal
training should not be held against her now that she has experienced
counsel, who has argued the crucial facts and the key legal theories in the
opening brief.
B.

Even if the Court can take judicial notice of the

PSA, it does not establish Yvanovas loan was
legally assigned.

Unlike Yvanovas opening brief, which focused on the Deed of

Trust, respondents brief concentrates on the Pooling and Servicing
Agreement that supposedly governed the interpretation and operation of the
securitized trust that claimed to own Yvanovas loan. (Called the Morgan
Stanley MBS or the investment trust in Yvanovas opening brief, at page
6.) Respondents argument begins with the curious statement that postclosing recordation does not in itself suggest that the assignments were
made at the time of the recordation. (Respondents brief, at page 17,

quoting Rajamin v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 757 F.3d 79, 91 (2d
Cir. 2014).)
But, the assignment does not use the past tense.

It says: the

Assignor does . . . hereby grant, bargain, sell, transfer and set over unto
Assignee. . . . (RA, at page 72.) The use of the present tense tells most
people, and certainly most homeowners, that the assignment is happening at
the same time as the recording. The assignment was signed December 19,
2011 and recorded later in December 2011. (Ibid.) There is no language in
the assignment warning anyone, let alone a homeowner, that the assignment
had been done earlier. No language tells the homeowner the assignment
had occurred on the effective date of the PSA, in January 2007.
Given the assignments plain language, the average homeowner,
such as Yvanova, would have questions about its validity. The investment
trust that received the assignment had, according to the PSA, a January 1,
2007 cut-off date. (See PSA, definition of Cut-off Date, in the definitions
section of the PSA, found at https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/
1385840/000091412107000322/ms7263661-ex4.txt, accessed March 18,
2015.) The December 2011 date of the assignment is proof by itself that it
was not executed in 2007 but in 2001. An assignment that comes nearly
five years after the cut-off date surely raises questions.
Respondents then argue that the late assignment is perfectly
consistent with the PSA, which provides, according to respondents,
5

recordation of an assignment of a Deed of Trust in California only if

foreclosure proceedings occur against a Mortgaged Property. . . .
(Respondents brief, at page 9, quoting the PSA, at section 2.01 (b), AA
Vol. 1-2, page 340; emphasis deleted.) The actual language of the PSA
reads: However, with respect to the Assignments of Mortgage referred to
in clauses (i) and (ii) above, if foreclosure proceedings occur against a
Mortgaged Property, the applicable Servicer shall record such Assignment
of Mortgage. . . . (AA Vol. 102, at page 340.)
This clause mentions nothing about California in particular. Further,
it is limited to Assignments of Mortgage referred to in clauses (i) and (ii)
above. . . .

Clause (i) refers to mortgages where the Trustee, the

Custodian and each Rating Agency have received an Opinion of Counsel . .

. that recordation of such Assignments of Mortgage in any specific
jurisdiction is not necessary to protect the Trustees interest. . . . (Ibid.)
This clause does not apply to Yvanova, because there was no document
presented to the lower courts that said the Trustee under the PSA
received a legal opinion that recordation was not necessary. As for clause
(ii), it applies if such Mortgage Loan is a MERS designated Mortgage
Loan. . . . (Ibid.) Yvanovas loan was not a MERS loan (RA, at pages 40,
42.) Clause (ii) does not help respondents. Because the Yvanova loan does
not fall within Clauses (i) or (ii), respondents cannot claim the PSA
somehow justifies the late assignment of her loan to the investment trust.
6

Respondents claim about the assignment also does not make sense
given the chronology of the foreclosure. They believe the late assignment
was recorded only after Yvanovas loan went into foreclosure.

But,

respondents issued the first Notice of Default, which began the foreclosure
process, on August 29, 2008. (RA, at page 65.) The assignment dates from
over three years later, in December 2011.

(RA, at page 72.)

As

respondents read the PSA, the assignment and the start of the foreclosure
should occur close together. They should not occur more than three years
apart.
In any case, even if the PSA language does somehow apply to the
late assignment, it merely creates an issue of fact. Yvanova argues the
December 2011 assignment violates the PSA because it came nearly five
years after the PSA cut-off date. Respondents argue the late assignment
occurred only because Yvanovas loan went into foreclosure. This is a
factual dispute. Demurrers do not resolve factual disputes. Evans v. City of
Berkeley, 38 Cal.4th 1, 5 (2006).
Respondents also are unwise to rely on the December 2011
assignment. They point out that under California law, the assignment of
the note carrie[s] with it the security of the deed of trust. (Respondents
brief, at page 19, quoting Seidell v. Tuxedo Land Co., 216 Cal. 165, 170
(1932).)

This contention works if the assignment actually assigns the

promissory note and does not mention the deed of trust. In that event,
7

California law dictates that assignment of the promissory note also transfers
the deed of trust.

In Yvanovas case, however, the December 2011

assignment says nothing about assigning the note.

It merely states:

Assignor does . . . hereby grant, bargain, sell, transfer and set over unto the
Assignee . . . to the following deed of trust describing land therein. . . .
(RA, at page 72.) Without language specifically describing the promissory
note, the December 2011 assignment might run afoul of the rule that the
failure to assign the note with the deed of trust invalidates the deed of trust
and makes the loan unsecured. See, e.g., Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S.
271, 275 (1873), cited in Respondents brief, at page 19.
Respondents then come to their main argument under the PSA. The
PSA, by its clear language, transferred the Yvanova loan from the lender to
the investment trust automatically on the day the PSA went into effect.
(Respondents brief, at pages 19-20.) According to Respondents reading
of the PSA, the PSA shows that New Century sold and assigned all right,
title, and interest in her debt, including the beneficial interest in the Deed of
Trust, to [the investment trust] in 2007, and that the Trusts ownership
vested on that date. . . . (Respondents brief, at page 20.) Respondents
quote this language from the PSA to support that proposition:

[T]he Depositor, concurrent with the execution and delivery

hereof, hereby sells, transfers, assigns, sets over and
otherwise conveys to the Trustee for the benefit of the
Certificateholders, without recourse, all the right, title and
interest of the Depositor in and to the Trust Fund, and the
Trustee, on behalf of the Trust, hereby accepts the Trust
Fund. . . . (AA Vol. 1-2, p. 337, 2.01 (a)).
This argument has two flaws, both fatal. One, it requires this Court
to take judicial notice of a document that is not a recorded public record.
(The PSA is on file with the SEC at the SECs Edgar website; see cite
above, at pages 4-5 of this reply brief.) As this Court has stressed, When
judicial notice is taken of a document . . . the truthfulness and proper
interpretation of the document are disputable. StorMedia, Inc. v. Superior
Court, 20 Cal.4th 449, 457, fn. 9 (1999). Or, as the courts of appeal put it,
Taking judicial notice of a document is not the same thing as accepting the
truth of its contents or accepting a particular interpretation of its meaning.
Joslin v. H.A.S. Insurance Brokerage, 184 Cal.App.3d 369, 374 (1986);
Herrera v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 196 Cal.App.4th 1366, 369
(2011) (refusing to take judicial notice of documents in a wrongful
foreclosure case). Respondents argument rests on the assumption that this
Court must both accept the truth of statements made in the PSA and, more
important, must accept as true respondents interpretation of the PSA. This
Courts rules on judicial notice do not allow that.
Respondents may argue that Yvanova attached portions of the PSA
to papers she submitted to the trial court and the court of appeal. From
9

there they may argue that Yvanova admitted the genuineness of the PSA
and their interpretation of the document. But, you can read Yvanovas
complaints and her opposition to the demurrers as saying that she disputed
whether respondents had the power to foreclose. She also disputed whether
the PSA, the December 2011 assignment, or any other document authorized
the foreclosure. Nothing she submitted can be construed as an admission
that the PSA allowed respondents to foreclose or that she accepted
respondents interpretation of the PSA.
The second problem is that respondents fail to cite all the relevant
portions of the PSA.

The PSA, for example, says the Depositor,

concurrently with the execution, and delivery hereof, hereby sells, transfers
assigns . . . all the right, title and interest of the Depositor in the Trust Fund.
. . . (Respondents brief, at page 20, quoting AA Vol. 1-2, p. 337, 2.01
(a) of the PSA.) Who is the depositor? According to first page of the PSA
and the PSAs definition section, the Depositor is Morgan Stanley ABS
Capital I Inc. Yet, respondents argument misses a crucial step. The PSA
does not explain how Yvanovas loan passed from New Century Mortgage
Corporation, the originator of the loan, to the Depositor, Morgan Stanley
ABS Capital I Inc.

Nothing in the PSA purports to accomplish this

transfer. Without that preliminary step, respondents cannot rely on the PSA
as proof that the Depositor transferred the Yvanova loan to the investment
trust. There is no indication that the Depositor had the right to do so.
10

In addition, the Depositor sold its interest in the Trust Fund.

(Respondents brief, at page 20.) Under the definition of Trust Fund in
the PSA, the fund consists of the Mortgage Loans. . . . . The PSA then
defines the Mortgage Loans as an individual Mortgage Loan that is
identified on the Mortgage Loan Schedule. . . . In other words, all the
Depositor transfers to the investment trust are a list of loans on the
Mortgage Loan Schedule. Nothing in the documents Yvanova submitted
to the lower courts included a Mortgage Loan Schedule. Further, such a
schedule was required to be attached to the PSA. But, the PSA filed with
the SEC contains no such schedule. There is no way to tell if, according to
the terms of the PSA, Yvanovas loan was on the list of assets transferred
by the Depositor.
Finally, the PSA provided that a transfer of a loan depended on the
Depositor delivering to the Trustee the the original Mortgage Note bearing
all intervening endorsements, endorsed Pay to the order of

______,

without recourse an signed . . . in the name of the last endorsee by an

authorized officer. (PSA, section 2.01 (b) (i)). In addition, the Depositor
was to deliver to the Trustee the original Assignment of Mortgage for each
Mortgage Loan endorsed in blank . . . the originals of all intervening
assignments of Mortgage . . . evidencing a complete chain of title from the
applicable originator . . . to the last endorsee with evidence of recording
thereof. . . . (PSA, at sections 2.01 (a) (v) and (vi).) Respondents cannot
11

point to any document in the record that shows the Depositor completed
these tasks. But, without them, the Depositor could not transfer Yvanovas
loan. In the end, the PSA does not support respondents case; the PSA
destroys it.
C.

California law allows Yvanova to challenge the

purported assignment.

Respondents main argument is that because Yvanova was not a

party to the PSA, she has no right to enforce it. First, this argument rests on
a foundation of hypocrisy. Earlier, respondents contended that Yvanova
was bound by the PSA, including its choice of law clause and its provision
that her loan was automatically transferred by the Depositor as soon as
the PSA went into force in 2007. (Respondents brief, at pages 20, 21 and
23.) As even respondents must recognize, a contract binds a person only if
that person is a party to the contract. Martinez v. Socoma Cos., 11 Cal.3d
395, 400 (1974). By urging this Court to find that Yvanova is bound by the
PSA, respondents concede she is a party to the PSA and can enforce its
terms. Respondents then deny that admission by insisting she is not a party
to the PSA. They cannot have it both ways.
Second, respondents rely on New York law to insist Yvanova cannot
invoke the PSA. (Respondents brief, at pages 23-24.) The PSA choice of
law clause, however, is narrow and applies only to interpretation of the
language used in the PSA.

This agreement shall be construed in

12

accordance with and governed by the substantive laws of the State of New
York applicable to agreements made and to be performed in the State of
New York. (PSA, at section 10.03 Governing Law.)
How the language of the PSA should be interpreted is a secondary
question, perhaps governed by New York law and perhaps not. As noted
above, New York law applies to interpret the PSA if the PSA is to be
performed in the State of New York. In this case, however, the PSA was
to be performed in California, because the loan was made in California,
and the foreclosure occurred in California. Thus, Yvanova can argue the
agreement was performed in part in California, which makes New York
law inapplicable even under the PSAs choice of law clause.
But, before any court gets to the interpretation of the PSA, it must
answer a preliminary question: who has the power to enforce terms of the
PSA? The PSAs choice of law clause does not resolve that issue, because
the clause just deals with interpretation of the PSAs terms. The answer to
that crucial, first question should be a matter of California law, as it affects
California homeowners. The PSA will determine who has the power to
foreclose on their homes and who has the power to grant or deny loan
modifications.

Under Californias choice of law rules, governmental

interest analysis controls. Washington Mutual Bank v. Superior Court, 24

Cal.4th 906, 919 (2001). That process applies the law of the state whose
interests are most affected by the choice of one states law. Ibid.
13

Here, California borrowers have a huge stake in having California

law applied. They live in California, own properties in California, and they
expect California law to govern their obligations as borrowers. New York
has a less meaningful interest. The investment trust may be located in New
York (if it has a physical location at all), but its Certificateholders or
investors are located in many states, not just New York. They may care
little whether New York or California law applies. If the application of
California law causes the investment trust to pay money to a California
homeowner, the trust likely can recover that money from the loan servicer
or the trusts trustee under the broad indemnification clause of the PSA.
(See, e.g., sections 3.04 of the PSA, Liability of the Servicers, section
8.01, Duties of the Trustee, and section 8.05, Trustees Fees and
Expenses.) California law will cause little, if any harm, to the trust and its
Certificateholders. California law, rather than New York law, should
control on who can rely on the PSA to defend against a foreclosure.
Third, respondents are wrong when they insist the crucial contract in
this case is the PSA. (Respondents brief, at pages 20, 21 and 23.) The key
document is the Yvanova Deed of Trust. Only that contract creates a power
of sale, which allows the Lender under the Deed of Trust to declare a
default and order a foreclosure sale. Jenkins v. JPMorgan Chase Bank,
N.A., 216 Cal.App.4th 497, 508 (2013). Without rights granted under the
Deed of Trust, respondents clearly would lack the power to foreclose. Ibid.
14

Nothing in Californias foreclosure statutes creates a non-judicial power of

sale; that power must exist under a contract, the Deed of Trust. Ibid.
California law controls the interpretation and application of a
contract when California is the place where it is to be performed. Civil
Code section 1646. The Yvanova Deed of Trust was to be performed in
California. The Deed governed property in California, called for notices of
default to be issued to a California resident, and permitted a foreclosure sale
by the Lender in California. Civil Code section 1646 dictates that the
crucial questions in this case be decided by California law.
Fourth, the clear language of the Yvanova Deed of Trust, which this
Court must apply as written, Powerine Oil Co. v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.4th
377, 396 (2005), grants Yvanova standing. Yvanova dealt with the impact
of this language extensively in her opening brief and will not repeat that
analysis here. (See Opening Brief, at pages 17-20.) But, the Court should
focus on two clauses in the Deed of Trust. Respondents mention the first
one in their brief:

The covenants and agreements of this Security

Instrument shall bind . . . and benefit the successor and assigns of Lender.
(RA, at page 50, Deed of Trust, section 13, cited by Respondents brief, at
page 4.) The investment trust in this case claims to be an assign of the
Lender through the December 2011 assignment and through the PSA.
The trust thus is bound by the Deed of Trust and all its clauses. One
crucial clause is section 22, which provides that the borrower has the right
15

to bring a court action to assert the non-existence of a default or any other

defense of Borrower to acceleration and sale. (RA, at page 53.) Read
according to its plain language, this clause entitles the borrower, such as
Yvanova, to bring suit to assert any defense she may have against a
foreclosure sale. One such defense has to be a possible violation of the
PSA by an assignment of her loan after the investment trusts 2007 closing
date. Since the investment trust has agreed to be bound by the terms of the
Deed of Trust, including the borrowers right to sue, it must recognize the
borrower has standing to challenge a foreclosure by alleging a lack of
compliance with the PSA. And, as Yvanova points out in her opening
brief, the investment trust must accept that nothing in the Deed of Trust
tells the borrower she has no such right. (Opening Brief, at pages 22-24.)
Fifth, respondents forget that under California law, the investment
trust, as the party claiming it has been assigned the Yvanova loan, must
prove that assignment. Numerous cases stand for the general principle
that the party asserting a right under an assigned instrument bears the
burden of demonstrating the assignment. Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank,
198 Cal.App.4th 256, 270 (2011), citing Neptune Society Corp. v.
Longanecker, 194 Cal.App.3d 1233, 1242 (1987). Neptune Society, in turn,
relied on this Courts opinion in Cockerell v. Title Ins. & Trust Co., 42
Cal.2d 284, 292 (1954), where the Court held:

16

The burden of proving an assignment falls upon the party

asserting rights thereunder. In an action by an assignee to
enforce an assigned right, the evidence must not only be
sufficient to establish the fact of assignment when the fact is
in issue [citation] but the measure of sufficiency requires that
the evidence of assignment be clear and positive to protect an
obligor from any further claim by the primary oblige.
(Citations omitted.)
Cockerell has never been overruled or limited and it remains
controlling law. Under Cockerell, the investment trust must demonstrate it
holds Yvanovas loan pursuant to a valid transfer. Yvanova does not have
that burden. The investment trust, not Yvanova, must prove it has standing
to enforce the Deed of Trust. It has not demonstrated as a matter of law
that it has standing. Yvanova has alleged it does not and created a disputed
issue of fact on standing. That should have been enough to get her past
respondents demurrer.
D.

Yvanova can allege the assignment is void.

Respondents make much of the distinction between void contracts

and voidable contracts. (Respondents brief, at pages 28-33.) According
to them, a void contract is a nullity and cannot be ratified. (Respondents
brief, at page 28.) Voidable contracts, conversely, injure the rights of a
party to the agreement, which that party may elect to invalidate or ratify.
(Ibid.) They believe this distinction is crucial to this case and favors them.
It is irrelevant. The issue presented, as drafted by this Court, assumes the
late assignment is void.
17

The question is not whether the Yvanova Deed of Trust is void. The
question is whether the investment trust, as the purported holder of
Yvanovas loan, had the power to order a foreclosure on her home. The
foreclosure had to start with the trust as the claimed assignee of the
Lender. Jenkins v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 216 Cal.App.4th at 508.
The investment trust could claim that power only if it had a valid
assignment of the Yvanova Deed of Trust. Cockerell v. Title Ins. & Trust
Co., 42 Cal.2d at 292. Either it was an assign of the lender or it was not.
Void or voidable makes no difference.
In California, when a party authorizes a foreclosure without the
power to do so, the foreclosure is void, not voidable. See, e.g., Pro Value
Properties, Inc. v. Quality Loan service Corp., 170 Cal.App.4th 579, 581,
583 (2009), and Glaski v. Bank of America, 218 Cal.App.4th 1079, 1094
(2013). As the First District recently held, a sale is rendered void when it
is conducted by an entity that lacks authority to do so. Ram v. OneWest
Bank, 223 Cal.App.4th 1, 10 (2015).
The question of whether a foreclosure is void must be decided by
California law.

The foreclosure sale here occurred in California and

harmed a California homeowner, not a New York borrower. New York has
no interest in this question. California law dictates that if Yvanova can
allege an improper assignment, she has alleged a void foreclosure sale. She
has alleged an invalid assignment by charging that the 2011 assignment of
18

her Deed of Trust violated the terms of the PSA, which required a transfer
of all property into the trust by its 2007 closing date.
Respondents void vs. voidable argument has another flaw.

As

respondents note, even if a contract is voidable, the injured party can chose
to ratify it despite its flaws. (Respondents brief, at page 28.) So, assuming
respondents are correctand they are notthe investment trust could
choose to ratify the invalid 2011 assignment of the Yvanova Deed of Trust.
But, can this Court assume as a matter of law that they would ratify? No.
The assignment violated the PSA by being made over four years after its
closing date. The federal tax laws require a closing date because they
require that all property be deposited into the trust before that date. Glaski
v. Bank of America, 218 Cal.App.4th at 1093, fn. 12; 26 U.S.C. 860A (a)
and 860D (a); Oppenheim, et al., Deconstructing the Black Magic of
Securitized Trusts, 41 Stetson.L.Rev. 745, 757-758 (2012).
Under the Internal Revenue Code, income received by an REMIC
investment trust is not taxed if the trust is properly formed. (Ibid.) The
investment trust in Yvanovas case was a REMIC trust. (Ibid.) But, if
property is transferred into the trust after the closing date, that action can
jeopardize the trusts tax exempt status. Oppenheim, et al., Deconstructing
the Black Magic of Securitized Trusts, 41 Stetson.L.Rev. at 757-758.
Investors in the trust also could face increased tax liabilities and possible
IRS audits. (Ibid.)
19

A decision by the trustee for the trust to ratify a late assignment

could expose the trust itself to an IRS investigation and loss of its nontaxable status. It also could harm the investors in the trust. Because the
trustee owes a fiduciary duty to the trust, it may be reluctant to ratify a late
assignment if harm to the trust or investors could result. So, it hardly is
settled as a matter of law that the Trustee of the investment trust here would
approve a late assignment.

Even if the assignment is voidable, as

respondents contend, ratification is a disputed issue of fact no demurrer

should resolve. Evans v. City of Berkeley, 35 Cal.4th at 5; Common Wealth
Insurance Systems, Inc. v. Kersten, 40 Cal.App.3d 1014, 1026 (1974)
(holding that ratification ordinarily is an issue of fact). Because this case is
before the Court following a demurrer, the void vs. voidable argument
ultimately does respondents no good.
E.

Yvanova does not have to allege prejudice to

have standing.

Respondents next contend that the time honored rule in California,

as Yvanova concedes (OB 13), is that standing to pursue a wrongful
foreclosure claim must include a showing of actual prejudice.
(Respondents brief, at page 33.)
Yvanova never conceded this prejudice rule applied to her case.
Respondents purport to find support for this alleged admission on page 13
of the Opening Brief. That page merely quotes language from a case that
20

mentions prejudice; Yvanova did not say she agreed with the prejudice test.
She does not, for several reasons.
First, the prejudice test cannot be applied when a borrower alleges
a foreclosure is void because the lender or servicer has no power to
foreclose:
The second elementprejudiceis met when an irregularity
in the proceeding adversely affects the trustors ability to
protect their interest in the property. Prejudice however, is
not presumed from mere irregularities in the process. . . .
[] A sale is not rendered void merely because of minor or
technical defects. . . . A sale is rendered void when the defects
are substantial. . . . Similarly, a sale is rendered void when the
foreclosure sale is conducted by an entity that lacks the
authority to do so. Ram v. OneWest Bank, 234 Cal.App.4th at
8, quoting Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 198
Cal.App.4th at 272 (italics added).
Yvanova, of course, argues that the investment trust claiming to own
her loan has no power to foreclose because it is acting pursuant to an
invalid assignment. Since she attacks its very power to foreclose, she need
not allege prejudice.
Second, the prejudice rule should apply only to cases where the
borrower alleges procedural defects in the foreclosure process. The early
cases that created the prejudice rule relied on the observation that mere
procedural problems in a foreclosure sale should not be enough to overturn
the sale without prejudice. For example, collusion in the foreclosure sale
bidding process was the basis for the claim in Lo v. Jensen, 88 Cal.App.4th
1093 (2001). In Angell v. Superior Court, 73 Cal.App.4th 691 (1999), the
21

notice of default and the notice of trustees sale contained errors in the
amounts due under the loan. Both were procedural errors and the courts
held the plaintiffs had to allege prejudice. Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A., 198 Cal.App.4th at 272, relied on both cases to create a prejudice rule
it applied to all wrongful foreclosure claims. The Fontenot court stressed
that Prejudice is not presumed from mere irregularities in the process.
Ibid.
But, Yvanova does not rely on procedural errors or mere
irregularities in the process. She does not say the notices she received
were late, or were not delivered. She argues an error of substancethe
investment trust authorized the foreclosure, the entities that started the
process, had no power to foreclose because they had no interest in her loan.
This error makes the foreclosure on Yvanovas home void.

Ram v.

OneWest Bank, supra. When an error makes a sale void, it no longer is

procedural. The cases imposing a prejudice rule, since they are based on
procedural errors, do not apply. They do not require Yvanova to allege
prejudice.
Third, there is something irregular about imposing a prejudice test in
a wrongful foreclosure case.

Ordinarily, to allege a tort or breach of

contract, you must allege a breach of duty or breach of contract, and that
the breach caused you damages. See, e.g., Reichert v. General Ins. Co., 68
Cal.2d 822, 830 (1968). There is no separate requirement that you charge
22

you were prejudiced. Imposition of a prejudice test requires a strong

public policy which, when you look at the case law and the foreclosure
statutes, does not exist.
Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank, 198 Cal.Ap.4th at 270-271, purported
to find support for a prejudice rule in the public policy behind the
foreclosure statutes.

It identified that policy as only giving the

creditor/beneficiary with a quick, inexpensive and efficient remedy against

a defaulting borrower. . . . Id., quoting Moeller v. Lien, 25 Cal.App.4th
822, 830 (1994). Yet, Moeller v. Lien did not hold the quick, inexpensive
and efficient remedy against a default creditor was the sole purpose for the
foreclosure statutes. Another was to protect the debtor/trustor from a
wrongful loss of property.

Moeller v. Lien, 25 Cal.App.4th at 830.

Imposing a foreclosure test in addition to requiring damage weakens this

policy because it makes it harder for borrowers to allege a wrongful loss
of property. Contrary to what the Fontenot opinion suggests, the multiple
policies behind the foreclosure statutes do not mandate a prejudice test.
And, the statutes, as amended by the Homeowners Bill of Rights,
seek to avoid unlawful foreclosures initiated by parties that lack the power
to foreclose. Civil Code section 2924 (a) (6) now provides that No entity
shall record or cause to be recorded or otherwise initiate the foreclosure
process unless it is the holder of the beneficial interest under the mortgage
or deed of trust. . . (Italics added.)
23

Civil Code section 2924.17 (b) commands: Before recording or

filing any of the documents described in subdivision (a), a mortgage
servicer shall ensure that it has reviewed competent and reliable evidence to
substantiate the borrower's default and the right to foreclose, including the
borrower's loan status and loan information.

(Italics added.)

These

statutes now reflect a clear California public policy: foreclosures shall not
be initiated by a party unless it has the power to foreclose. A prejudice test
interferes with that policy because it makes it harder for borrowers to allege
and prove violations of the Homeowners Bill of Rights. If this Court
applies present California public policy as found in the Homeowners Bill of
Rights, it will see that the prejudice test has no place in this case.
This Court also cannot assume that every borrower who goes into
default will lose her home. If it does, it will confer on lenders and servicers
broad immunity, because no borrower will be able to sue for wrongful
foreclosure once she has defaulted. No California statute or public policy
justifies immunity.

Moreover, default is only the beginning of the

foreclosure process. Borrowers in default are encouraged to apply for loan

modifications and lenders and servicers are encouraged to grant them. See
Civil Code section 2923.4. If this Court imposes a prejudice test, it will
frustrate that policy.
In the end, prejudice is nothing more than an enhanced causation
test. As lenders and servicers see it, the borrower cannot allege prejudice
24

because his own default on the loan led to the foreclosure and the loss of
his home. Respondents make that very argument. (Respondents brief, at
page 34.) Yet, causation is an issue of fact that courts cannot resolve on
demurrer in a foreclosure situation. Mirkin v. Wasseman, 5 Cal.4th 1082,
1093 (1993); Alliance Mortgage Co. v. Rothwell, 10 Cal.4th 1226, 1239
(1995).
F.

California public policy favors standing for borrowers.

In her opening brief, Yvanova explained why the Biakanja v. Irving

factors--based on Biakanja v. Irving 49 Cal.2d 657 (1958)--favored
standing. (Opening Brief, at pages 24-41.) Respondents naturally attack
this position and argue that Yvanova wants to impose a duty on lenders.
(Respondents brief, at pages 37-41.) Yvanova anticipated much of this
attack in her opening brief and responded to it. (Opening Brief, at pages
24-41.) But, she wishes to add a few points.
Standing is just another word for privity of contract. For decades,
defendants, especially financial institutions, have argued they owe no duty
to a plaintiff because the plaintiff was not a party to their contract. See,
e.g., Connor v. Great Western Savings and Loan Assoc., 69 Cal.2d 850, 864
(1968). They have attempted to set up privity as a fortress. And, for
decades, this Court has attacked the privity fortress by holding privity does
not deprive a plaintiff of standing. Privity, in other words, cannot be used
to shield a financial defendant from liability to non-contracting parties.
25

Connor v. Great Western Savings and Loan Association, supra. Biakanja

shows this Court another way out of the standing trap respondents want to
use against borrowers. That is why Yvanova discussed the Biakanja factors
in detail.
The Biakanja factors, as even respondents concede, come down to
twopublic policy and moral blame. (Respondents brief, at pages 40-42.)
Public policy is set by the Homeowners Bill of Rights, because it is the
present public policy of California. Past public policy, which lenders and
servicers insist favors them, instead favors borrowers because this Court
has held for decades that a creditor must prove it has a valid assignment.
Cockerell v. Title Ins. & Trust Co., 42 Cal.2d at 292. As for moral blame,
respondents attack Yvanova because she committed the unforgivable sin of
defaulting on her loan. She was like thousands of California homeowners
who were victims of the Great Recession. California law does not cast
blame on her; it requires that she receive help if asked. See Civil Code
section 2923.4
But, respondents should not throw stones when they live in glass
houses. There was nothing wrong with loan securitization, but lenders and
servicers did not do the vital paperwork. They did not do the proper
assignments, make sure assignments were made before the closing dates of
various trusts, or draft documents that adequately informed borrowers of
their rights and obligations. They alone are to blame for these failures.
26

Borrowers like Yvanova did not draft the PSAs that govern investment
trusts, write the terms of deeds of trust that control foreclosures, or prepare
assignments that purported to transfer loans. If moral blame is a factor in
weakening the concepts of privity and standing under California law, it
surely works in favor of borrowers.
CONCLUSION
For these additional reasons, plaintiff and appellant TSVETANA
YVANOVA respectfully requests that this Court find she has standing and
that it reverse the judgment of the court of appeal.
Dated: March 19, 2015

LAW OFFICES OF
RICHARD L. ANTOGNINI
By:

________________________________
Richard L. Antognini
Attorneys for Plaintiff
and Appellant
TSEVETANA YVANOVA

27

CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT

Calif. Rules of Court, Rule 8.520 (c) (1).
The text in this Reply Brief on the Merits consists of 6,738 words, as
counted by the Word 2007 word processing program used to generate the
Petition.
Dated: March 19, 2015

LAW OFFICES OF
RICHARD L. ANTOGNINI
By:

________________________________
Richard L. Antognini
Attorneys for Plaintiff
and Appellant
TSEVETANA YVANOVA

28

SUPREME COURT CASE NO. S218973

YVANOVA V. NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE
PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST CLASS MAIL AND EMAIL
I, Richard L. Antognini, declare:
On March 19, 2015, I served the following document on the parties
identified below: APPELLANTS REPLY BRIEF ON THE MERITS. I
placed a true copy of this document in a sealed envelope addressed as
follows:
Robert W. Norman, Esq.
House & Allison, APC
3780 Kilroy Airport Way, Suite 130
Long Beach, California 90806
(Counsel for all Respondents)
K. Lee Marshall, Esq.
Bryan Cave LLP
560 Mission Street, Suite 2500
San Francisco, CA 94105
(Counsel for all Respondents)
Hon. Russell Steven Kussman
Los Angeles County Superior Court
Department Q
6230 Sylmar Avenue
Van Nuys, California 91401
Court of Appeal
Second Appellate District, Division One
300 South Spring Street, 2nd Floor
Los Angeles, California 90013
(Efiled service only pursuant to CRC 8.70)
I deposited such envelope in the mail at Lincoln, California. The
envelope was mailed with postage fully prepaid. I am familiar with the
firms practice of collecting and processing correspondence for mailing.
Under that practice, it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on
the same day with postage fully prepaid at Lincoln, California in the
ordinary course of business. I am aware that on the motion of the party
served, serivce is presumed invalid if the postage cancelled date or postage

meter date is more than one day after the date of deposit stated in the
mailing affidavit.
In addition, I sent a copy of the APPELLANTS REPLY BRIEF ON
THE MERITS to the following parties by email:
Charles Ward Cox
California Contract Paralegal
2705 Ravazza Road
Reno, Nevada
(Emailed to [email protected])
Mark F. Didak
Law Office of Mark F. Didak
6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor
Los Angeles, California
(Emailed to [email protected])
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of
California and the United States that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on March 19, 2015 at Lincoln, California.

__________________________________
Richard L. Antognini