HBORs- robo-signing statute, CC 2924.17.

Section (b) requires a servicer to ensure that it has reviewed competent and reliable evidence
to substantiate . . . [its] right to foreclose.
Section (a) also mandates that foreclosure documents, including assignments of the loan, be
accurate and complete and supported by competent and reliable evidence.
borrower alleged that the assignment of the DOT was robosigned because a trustee employee
signed the document, falsely purporting to be beneficiarys employee.
Servicer argued that borrowers claim fails, even if allegations were true, because he had not
alleged harm re the purported robosigning. But, court looked to plain language of the operative,
relief-granting statute, CC 2924.12(a), finding: borrowers need not show harm/injury to bring
viable robosigning claims u/HBOR. Thus, court denied servicers MTD on that basis. Court did
agree w/Svcr that borrowers allegations were conclusory; lacked factual support: Borrower did
not allege that the trustees employee lacked authority to sign on behalf of beneficiary, nor that
she failed to conduct the due diligence required by section 2924.17. dismissed w/LTA.
CCC 2924(a)(6) is effective from Jan. 1, 2013 - Jan. 1, 2018, and applies to all mortgage loans
and every licensed foreclosure entity in CA; requires svcrs provide proof of standing to 4clz.
"No entity can record or cause an NOD to be recorded or otherwise initiate the foreclosure
process unless it is the holder of the beneficial interest under the mortgage or DOT, the original
or substituted trustee under the DOT, or the designated agent of the holder of the beneficial
interest. No agent of the holder of the beneficial interest, original or substituted trustee may
record a notice of default or otherwise commence the foreclosure process except when acting
within the scope of authority designated by the holder of the beneficial interest."
In addition, large Servicers such as NATIONSTAR must prove their standing, and ensure that
all recorded documents (including the NOD filed this year) are accurate, complete and
supported by "competent and reliable evidence" pursuant to Civil Code 2924.17, which upon
information and belief NATIONSTAR has not done here.
Defendants, who are undeniably involved in mortgage loans, have failed to establish that they
are the holder of the beneficial interest under the mortgage or DOT, the original or substituted
trustee under the deed of trust, or the
designated agent of the holder of the beneficial interest.
G. HBOR Specifically Provides Injunctive Relief for the Above Violations
Without Any Action, Including Tender, Required of the Borrower
97. Cal Civ Code 2924.l2(a) is effective from Jan 1, 2013 to Jan 1, 2018, applies
to every licensed foreclosure entity that exceeds 175 residential foreclosures per
year in California, and states in pertinent part:
(1) If a trustee's deed upon sale has not been recorded, a borrower may bring an
action for injunctive relief to enjoin a material Violation of Section 2923.55
[Notice], 2923.6 [Dual Tracking], 2923.7 [SPOC), 2924.9 [Post-NOD Disclosures],
2924.10 [written Acknowledgement], 2924.11 (Servicer Obligations], or 2924.17
[Competent & Reliable Evidence].
(2) Any injunction shall remain in place and any trustee's sale shall be enjoined
until the court determines that the mortgage servicer, mortgage, trustee,

beneficiary, or authorized agent has corrected and remedied the violation or

violations giving rise to the action for injunctive relief...
Civil Code 2924.12(a) [designations, emphasis added].
The language of Civil Code 2924.12(a) makes the remedies for violation of
the sections set forth above mandatory, and requires no action whatsoever by the
Plaintiff borrower. Ever since "The Tender Rule" was created in the case of Lona v.
Citibank. N.A., 202 Cal. App. 4th 89, 112 (2011), the steady trend has been to carve
out exceptions to the rule. A longtime exception is that "Tender is not required if
it would be inequitable." Humboldt Sav. Bank v. McClerverty, 161 Cal. 285, 291
(1911), but there is also a strong recent trend toward finding tender inapplicable
in cases seeking to enjoin a pending foreclosure sale, such as the case at bar. See,
e.g., Mabry v. Superior Court, 185 Cal. App. 4th 208, 213 (2010); Intengan v. Bank
of Am., 214 Cal. App. 4th 1047, 1053-54 (2013); Pfeifer v. Countrywide Home Loans,
211 Cal. App. 4th 1250, 1281 (2012). See also, Tha v. Suntrust Mortg., Inc., No.
KC066003 (Cal. Super. Ct. July 22, 2013) (tender not required pre-foreclosure where
CC 2923.6 claim would negate the necessity for a sale); Mojanoff v. Select
Portfolio Servicing, Inc., No. LC100052 (Cal. Super. Ct. May 28, 2013) (the
mandatory language in HBOR's enforcement statutes would be irrationally optimistic
if courts regularly applied strict tender rules).
Defendants ignored the HBOR even after it became effective on January l, 2013, and
their violations of the statute constitute negligence per se.