Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 California opinions name it 2 courts 2013–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Abdallah v. United Savings Bankgreen2 sentences2015(Abdallah v. United Savings Bank (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1101, 1109 [tender requirement applies to "any cause of action for irregularity in the sale procedure"]; McElroy v. Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp., supra, 134 Cal.App.4th at p. 394 .) In the absence of a sufficient tender by Cardoni, the court did not err by sustaining the demurrer on this cause of action. 2014(Abdallah v. United Savings Bank (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1101, 1109 [tender requirement applies to “any cause of action for irregularity in the sale procedure”]; McElroy v. Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp., supra, 2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 388, 394 .) In the absence of a sufficient tender by plaintiff, summary adjudication on this cause of action was properly granted to defendants. | 2 | 2 |
Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Wilford J.green1 sentence2025(See, e.g., In re Wilford J. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 742, 754 [“[a]n appellate court ordinarily will not consider challenges based on procedural defects or erroneous rulings where an objection could have been but was not made in the trial court”; “[d]ependency cases are not exempt from this foreclosure doctrine,” the purpose of which “is to 13 Father’s appellate briefing ambiguously argues that the juvenile court erred by removing “the children” from his physical custody without identifying Z.G. and A.G. specifically. | 1 | 1 |
Little v. Auto Stiegler, Inc.green2 sentences2013Contrary to the Siligas’ argument, this provision does not purport to authorize MERS to initiate a foreclosure in violation of the law, is not “unfairly one-sided” or “ ‘ “ ‘overly harsh’ ” ’ ” {Little v. Auto Stiegler, Inc. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1064, 1071 [ 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 892 , 63 P.3d 979 ]), and therefore is not substantively unconscionable. 5 We reject the argument that MERS as nominee of the original lender could not assign the note because it did not possess the note. 2013Contrary to the Siligas’ argument, this provision does not purport to authorize MERS to initiate a foreclosure in violation of the law, is not “unfairly one-sided” or “ ‘ “ ‘overly harsh’ ” ’ ” {Little v. Auto Stiegler, Inc. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1064, 1071 [ 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 892 , 63 P.3d 979 ]), and therefore is not substantively unconscionable. 5 We reject the argument that MERS as nominee of the original lender could not assign the note because it did not possess the note. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McCelroy v. Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp.
green
2 sentences2015(Abdallah v. United Savings Bank (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1101, 1109 [tender requirement applies to "any cause of action for irregularity in the sale procedure"]; McElroy v. Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp., supra, 134 Cal.App.4th at p. 394 .) In the absence of a sufficient tender by Cardoni, the court did not err by sustaining the demurrer on this cause of action. 2014(Abdallah v. United Savings Bank (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1101, 1109 [tender requirement applies to “any cause of action for irregularity in the sale procedure”]; McElroy v. Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp., supra, 2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 388, 394 .) In the absence of a sufficient tender by plaintiff, summary adjudication on this cause of action was properly granted to defendants. | 2 | 2014–2015 |
Herrera v. Federal National Mortgage Ass'n
green
2 sentences2016(Ibid.) Jenkins also cited Herrera v. Federal National Mortgage Assn. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1495 [ 141 Cal.Rptr.3d 326 ], which primarily addressed the *935 merits of a foreclosure challenge, concluding the borrowers had adduced no facts on which they could allege an assignment from MERS to another beneficiary was invalid. {Id. at pp. 1502-1506.) In reaching the merits, the court did not explicitly discuss the plaintiffs’ standing to challenge the assignment. 2016(Ibid.) Jenkins also cited Herrera v. Federal National Mortgage Assn. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1495 [ 141 Cal.Rptr.3d 326 ], which primarily addressed the *935 merits of a foreclosure challenge, concluding the borrowers had adduced no facts on which they could allege an assignment from MERS to another beneficiary was invalid. {Id. at pp. 1502-1506.) In reaching the merits, the court did not explicitly discuss the plaintiffs’ standing to challenge the assignment. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
NBCUniversal Media v. Superior Court CA2/4
green
1 sentence2015It has been held that for “ ‘certain, rather unusual breach of contract actions,’ ‘the discovery rule may be applied to breaches which can be, and are, committed in secret and, moreover, where the harm flowing from those breaches will not be reasonably discoverable by plaintiffs until a future time.’ [Citation.]” (NBCUniversal Media, LLC v. Superior Court (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1222, 1233 , fn. omitted.) Ikeoka has not, and cannot, allege that the breach of contract in this case was committed in secret, in light of her express allegations that the contract was breached when she received a lett | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Lona v. Citibank, N.A.
green
1 sentence2014(Lona v. Citibank, N.A., supra, 202 Cal.App.4th 89, 112 , quoted ante.) A number of reported decisions have linked the availability of declaratory relief in a foreclosure challenge to satisfying the tender requirement. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.