California Codes

Cal. Financial Code § 50000 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

This division will be known and may be cited as the California Residential Mortgage Lending Act.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1999–2011 · leading case: Am. Fin. Servs. Ass'n v. City of Oakland, 104 P.3d 813 (Cal. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Am. Fin. Servs. Ass'n v. City of Oakland, 104 P.3d 813 (Cal. 2005). · cites it 2× “), at least two other state laws governing mortgage lenders, the California Residential Mortgage Lending Act (Fin.Code, § 50000 et seq.), and the mortgage of real property provisions in the Civil Code (Civ.”

McKell v. Washington Mut., Inc., 49 Cal. Rptr. 3d 227 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “The foregoing practices, plaintiffs alleged, violated the UCL prohibition against unlawful business practices, in that *236 they defrauded and misled plaintiffs in violation of the Civil Code and common law; violated the California Residential Mortgage Lending Act (CRMLA,…”

Das v. WMC Mortg. Corp., 831 F. Supp. 2d 1147 (N.D. Cal. 2011). · cites it 3× “Plaintiffs allege that “Lenders and Broker failed to execute and provide copies of a Written Loan Brokerage Agreement to Plaintiffs in violation of California Financial Code Section 50000 et seq.”

McKell v. Washington Mut., Inc., 2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8836 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “The foregoing practices, plaintiffs alleged, violated the UCL prohibition against unlawful business practices, in that they defrauded and misled plaintiffs in violation of the Civil Code and common law; violated the California Residential Mortgage Lending Act (CRMLA, Fin. Code,…”

Washington Mut. Bank, Fa v. Superior Court, 115 Cal. Rptr. 2d 765 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002). “4 The Guilford complaint also included a cause of action based on the California Residential Mortgage Lending Act (Fin. Code, § 50000 et seq.), and the Talley complaint’s cause of action for violation of the UFA was predicated, in part, on the same act.”

Washington Mut. Bank v. Superior Court, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8297 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999). “) A violation of RESPA or Regulation X is made unlawful under California law by Financial Code section 50505, which states that, “Any person who violates any provision of [RESPA] or any regulation promulgated thereunder, violates this division [California Residential Mortgage…”

Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Boutris, 419 F.3d 949 (9th Cir. 2005). “2 From 1996 to 2003, 3 WFHMI was licensed to engage in real estate lending activities under the California Residential Mortgage Lending Act (CRMLA), Cal. Fin. Code §§ 50000 et seq., 4 , and the California Finance Lenders Law (CFLL), Cal.”

Quicken Loans, Inc. v. Wood, 449 F.3d 944 (9th Cir. 2006). “See Cal. Fin. Code §§ 50000 et seq. Quicken describes its loan process as follows: After Quicken Loans approves a loan, Quicken Loans and its California borrowers typically complete the lending process through independent escrow companies.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.