According to California law eviction notices must unambiguously terminate tenancy upon expiration of a time period specified in the notice.
Per Dean Preston, Executive Director of Tenants Together, “Banks across the board have failed to comply with this basic requirement of California law when terminating tenancies after foreclosure. These notices are incomprehensible. They don’t clearly state when the tenant is expected to move out. Tenants who received these notices should get legal help and consider contesting these evictions.”
Recently, a tenant residing in Oakland, CA filed a motion to dismiss against an eviction lawsuit brought by Aurora Loan Services LLC. The tenant argued the notice to quit was uncertain and confusing because it referenced several timeframes and failed to unambiguously terminate tenancy at a particular time. The court found in favor of the tenant.
The East Bay Community Law Center (EBCLC) staff attorney, Marc Janowitz, who argued the case said, “an unclear eviction notice is an invalid eviction notice. It is not the tenant’s job to figure out what the landlord is trying to tell them to do. We see a lot of these confusing notices after foreclosures.”
When we purchase our home in 2005 we put $120,000 down and was talked into getting the 5 year adjustable rate mortgage. What a scam.
I first started having problems three years later and they informed me to call HOPE and later to contact the Home Affordable Modification Program. After months of getting nowhere and multiple trials payments I am told that the “Investor” that now owns my loan does not do modifications through the Home Affordable Modification Program. I was also told my sale date set for Nov. 24, 2010 would be postponed until Feb. 22, 2011 while I went through another set of 3 month trial payments. I found out today the sale is the day before Thanksgiving.
The mortgage on the house next door was owned by Wells Fargo. The mortgage amount was $335,000 and Wells sold the house for $256,000 to an investor. How does that make sense unless the government is paying Wells the $80,000 LOSS. This all doesn’t make sense. On my home I owe $460,000 and it is now worth $340,000. So instead of making arrangements for me to pay off the loan with a low interest rate Wells would rather sell the house to investors and get reimbursed the $120,000 LOSS from the government which means the tax payers. I am not looking for principle reduction all I am asking for is a reduction in the interest rate and piggy back a portion of what I owe so when the economy turns around everyone will get paid. Wells made money when they sold my loan to investors and now Wells will get paid again from the government that guaranteed the loan. Why are the investors protected and not the home owner and tax payer?