Re: TITLE VII—PROTECTING TENANTS AT FORECLOSURE

You nailed the issue, it's one of debate until there is state law/code or case law that someone can remember to use. A UD judge and an attorney duking it out over the definition of Notice of Foreclosure as it might apply to CA non-judicial foreclosure? Not a happy thing. I don't disagree with your analysis of what the NOD means, but it's not code and I'm not yet aware of any case law on this one. But I'm sure it's happening right this minute. You say "required" but you also say "possible foreclosure". Is "possible" really "notice". Surely you've seen those days in court. Not to put down the justices that do UD duty, but it's not like they are always up to the minute on foreclosure, quiet title, bona fide purchaser and bona fide tenant issues, etc.....all of which ARE relevant in UD court. But they are getting hit hard with these topics now.

Now, asking the folks in Sacramento to address relevant portions of the Federal Foreclosure law and write some governing code.....how about you and me start a petition? :)