[00:00:01] Speaker 01:
Madam Clerk, if you could call the next case, please.

[00:00:06] Speaker 01:
Inray Sanders, Angela E. Sanders, Appellant in Pro Se, Nicole Lynn Glowen, Counsel for Appellees, Face Servicing LLC, and U.S.

[00:00:20] Speaker 01:
Bank Trust.

[00:00:27] Speaker 04:
All right.

[00:00:29] Speaker 04:
Ms.

[00:00:29] Speaker 04:
Sanders, we can't see you, Ms.

[00:00:30] Speaker 04:
Glowen.

[00:00:32] Speaker 04:
There we go.

[00:00:36] Speaker 04:
All right.

[00:00:36] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:00:37] Speaker 04:
Ms.

[00:00:38] Speaker 04:
Sanders, so you'll have 15 minutes.

[00:00:40] Speaker 04:
Do you want to reserve any time for rebuttal?

[00:00:43] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:00:44] Speaker 03:
I would like to reserve five minutes for rebuttal.

[00:00:48] Speaker 03:
All right.

[00:00:48] Speaker 03:
Thank you very much.

[00:00:49] Speaker 03:
You may begin.

[00:00:50] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:00:51] Speaker 03:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:00:53] Speaker 03:
My name is Angela Sanders, appellant, pro se litigant debtor.

[00:00:58] Speaker 03:
Your honors, I stand before you today to address significant legal errors and factual misunderstandings made by the lower court in its decision regarding my confirmed Chapter 13 plan, the CARES Act forbearance, and the issues surrounding the chain of title and standing of the appellees to enforce post-petition payments.

[00:01:22] Speaker 03:
The confirmed plan and res judicata.

[00:01:25] Speaker 03:
First and foremost, the confirmed plan is binding and res judicata.

[00:01:31] Speaker 03:
As stated in section 5.03 and section 2.04B of the plan, my post-petition payments are explicitly governed by the CARES Act in conjunction with applicable state and federal laws.

[00:01:47] Speaker 03:
This provision was incorporated into my plan

[00:01:50] Speaker 03:
when it was modified and confirmed.

[00:01:53] Speaker 03:
The only authority governing my post-petition payments is the confirmed Chapter 13 plan, not the unsubstantiated notices filed by the appellees.

[00:02:04] Speaker 03:
Freddie Mac guidelines govern post-petition payments as Freddie Mac was the owner of my loan at the time I requested and received my COVID-19 forbearance in July 2020.

[00:02:16] Speaker 03:
Freddie Mac guidelines and FHFA regulations govern the clearance and subsequent repayment.

[00:02:25] Speaker 03:
These guidelines provided me the right to exit strategies such as repayment plans, deferrals, and other relief options.

[00:02:33] Speaker 03:
I was not required to make a lump sum payment.

[00:02:38] Speaker 03:
of post-petition amounts at the conclusion of the plan, as the Court incorrectly suggested.

[00:02:44] Speaker 03:
And that also goes for the foreborn payments.

[00:02:47] Speaker 03:
Misapplication of petition and post-petition payments.

[00:02:51] Speaker 03:
The Appellees misapplied both pre-petition and post-petition payments, violating Section 2.04b of the plan.

[00:03:00] Speaker 03:
Pre-petition arrears payments must be applied to arrears and post-petition payments must follow the amortization schedule.

[00:03:09] Speaker 03:
Instead, they servicing wrongly applied payments across the account without maintaining separate accounts for pre-petition and post-petition arrears.

[00:03:19] Speaker 03:
This misapplication directly affects the arrears balance and the overall payment calculations, which the court failed to address, creating material errors.

[00:03:30] Speaker 04:
Ms.

[00:03:31] Speaker 03:
Sanders, Ms.

[00:03:32] Speaker 04:
Sanders, can I interrupt you just for one second?

[00:03:34] Speaker 04:
And I apologize for that.

[00:03:36] Speaker 04:
The clock on our screen is not counting down.

[00:03:41] Speaker 04:
I just want to let the court, the court deputy know that.

[00:03:44] Speaker 04:
It's, we, we haven't, our clock hasn't started, so we do not know how much time remains.

[00:03:54] Speaker 04:
All right.

[00:03:55] Speaker 04:
Go ahead, Ms.

[00:03:56] Speaker 04:
Sanders.

[00:03:57] Speaker 03:
Okay, thank you, Your Honor.

[00:03:58] Speaker 03:
The misinterpretation of the CARES Act and Freddie Mac guidelines is the next section.

[00:04:05] Speaker 03:
The court misunderstood the role of Freddie Mac guidelines.

[00:04:08] Speaker 03:
The CARES Act does not stand alone.

[00:04:11] Speaker 03:
It is supported by the Freddie Mac guidelines that govern how federally backed loans are serviced.

[00:04:18] Speaker 03:
The CARES Act protections provided by the FHA and Freddie Mac

[00:04:24] Speaker 03:
are conditioned on the start date, pendency, and duration of the forbearance.

[00:04:30] Speaker 03:
These guidelines outline the exit strategies servicers must offer to borrowers upon the conclusion of the forbearance, such as repayment plans, loan modification, et cetera, or defaults.

[00:04:43] Speaker 03:
The importance of the start date.

[00:04:46] Speaker 03:
The start date of my COVID-19 forbearance is critical.

[00:04:50] Speaker 03:
Contrary to the court's assertion that the start date does not matter, it absolutely does because the Freddie Mac and CARES Act guidelines require strict adherence to the forbearance timeline.

[00:05:04] Speaker 03:
The court ignored this crucial fact, despite it being explicitly stated in my confirmed plan.

[00:05:10] Speaker 03:
The forbearance period began on July 10, 2020 and lasted 12 months, making the appellee statements regarding an earlier end incorrect.

[00:05:23] Speaker 03:
Next, misapplication of a homeowner assistance funds, half and Freddie Mac guidelines.

[00:05:30] Speaker 03:
Freddie Mac guidelines on half funds.

[00:05:32] Speaker 03:
According to Freddie Mac guidelines, particularly Section 9212.1 mortgage assistance funds received from a state or local program such as the California Mortgage Relief Program, they must be treated as if they were from the borrower.

[00:05:50] Speaker 03:
Servicers are required to apply those funds to the loan as if the borrower had made the payment themselves in accordance with the security instrument, Freddie Mac Guide, and applicable law.

[00:06:03] Speaker 03:
Face servicing's rejection of half funds in this case, face servicing improperly, reverse the half funds without informing me of its action.

[00:06:14] Speaker 03:
The program itself confirmed the funds were sent on my behalf

[00:06:19] Speaker 03:
and applied to my account.

[00:06:23] Speaker 03:
Base servicing's claim that I was ineligible due to an escrow shortage and their assertion of a prior loan modification were false.

[00:06:32] Speaker 03:
The Freddie Mac guidelines clearly state that servicers must accept these funds and apply them appropriately.

[00:06:39] Speaker 03:
which face servicing failed to do.

[00:06:43] Speaker 03:
This error was exacerbated when the court did not acknowledge this misapplication despite the evidence I provided.

[00:06:50] Speaker 03:
Next, reinstatement options under Freddie Mac guidelines.

[00:06:56] Speaker 03:
Full and partial reinstatement.

[00:06:58] Speaker 03:
As further outlined in Freddie Mac guidelines section 9203.3 through 9203.7, borrowers are entitled to reinstatement options upon the completion of a forbearance, including both full and partial reinstatement.

[00:07:17] Speaker 03:
A full reinstatement would require payment of the entire delinquent amount

[00:07:21] Speaker 03:
while a partial reinstatement would allow the borrower to make at least one full monthly payment and be placed on a repayment plan.

[00:07:29] Speaker 03:
Freddie Mac reinstatement guidelines.

[00:07:31] Speaker 03:
For full reinstatement, the servicer must not charge or collect any legal costs or fees unless permitted by law.

[00:07:39] Speaker 03:
And these fees must comply with exhibit 57A of Freddie Mac's approved attorney's fees.

[00:07:46] Speaker 03:
For partial reinstatement,

[00:07:48] Speaker 03:
The servicer should offer a repayment plan to cure the remaining delinquent amount while suspending foreclosure proceedings.

[00:07:56] Speaker 03:
Application to my case.

[00:07:58] Speaker 03:
Under these guidelines, face servicing should have offered me a repayment plan or loan deferral option to address the delinquency, particularly since the California Mortgage Relief Program funds were rejected without just cause.

[00:08:11] Speaker 03:
Freddie Mac guidelines prohibit the servicer from charging attorney fees,

[00:08:17] Speaker 03:
for foreclosure costs during the forbearance period, yet they continue to do so, compounding the errors in this case.

[00:08:24] Speaker 03:
Next, failure to address objections and factual discrepancies.

[00:08:29] Speaker 03:
Court error.

[00:08:30] Speaker 03:
The court ignored my objections to the claims made by face servicing about my forbearance exit strategy and the application of half funds.

[00:08:40] Speaker 03:
These objections were grounded in the federal rules of evidence and should have been fully addressed.

[00:08:47] Speaker 03:
Inconsistent claims

[00:08:48] Speaker 03:
by face servicing the court accepted face servicing version of events without considering the evidence I presented regarding the misapplication of forbearance dates improper fees and failure of

[00:09:02] Speaker 03:
and failure of face serving to offer the Freddie Mac approved exit strategies.

[00:09:08] Speaker 03:
The court also ignored my objections to face servicing's reversal of half funds, which contradicted the program's approval status and its own records as demonstrated by the evidence I provided.

[00:09:24] Speaker 03:
Next, chain of title and standing issues.

[00:09:27] Speaker 03:
Face servicing has no standing, and this includes US Bank, to enforce the note

[00:09:33] Speaker 03:
or claim post-petition payments because it never amended the proof of claim following the transfer from specialized loan servicing.

[00:09:43] Speaker 03:
According to the Bankruptcy Code and rules, when a claim is transferred, the new servicer must amend the proof of claim to reflect its interest since face servicing failed to do so and

[00:09:56] Speaker 03:
US Bank Trust, the right to file a supplemental claim or respond to the notice of final cure payment remains in the name of specialized loan servicing, leaving face servicing without standing.

[00:10:10] Speaker 03:
Additionally, there are two conflicting versions of the promissory note in the record, one endorsed in blank and one with a special endorsement

[00:10:21] Speaker 03:
to specialize loan servicing and then endorsed in blank.

[00:10:26] Speaker 03:
So it was in, okay.

[00:10:28] Speaker 03:
This discrepancy directly impacts the chain of title and the right to enforce the note on an issue that the court ignored.

[00:10:38] Speaker 03:
As stated, the misapplication of the payments and the two versions of the note create material facts and dispute which the court failed to address.

[00:10:47] Speaker 03:
In conclusion, the court made several material errors by failing to recognize the binding nature of my confirmed plan, misinterpreting the CARES Act and Freddie Mac guidelines, denying proper discovery and ignoring the standing and chain of title issues raised by the conflicting evidence.

[00:11:08] Speaker 03:
The post-petition payments, foreborn payments and exit strategies

[00:11:15] Speaker 03:
should have been governed by Freddie Mac guidelines.

[00:11:17] Speaker 03:
They have to be as outlined in my confirmed plan and the court's failure to address these issues resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

[00:11:27] Speaker 03:
I respectfully request that the decision of the lower court be reversed or remanded for further proceedings in light of these errors.

[00:11:35] Speaker 03:
And I would like to reserve the balance of my time.

[00:11:38] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:11:40] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Ms.

[00:11:41] Speaker 04:
Sanders.

[00:11:42] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:11:43] Speaker 04:
Ms.

[00:11:43] Speaker 04:
Glowen.

[00:11:46] Speaker 00:
Good afternoon, Your Honors.

[00:11:47] Speaker 00:
May it please the court, Nicole Golomb, for the appellees.

[00:11:50] Speaker 00:
The issue on this appeal is very narrow and very simple.

[00:11:55] Speaker 00:
We are here on an issue of final cure, which is a simple issue of whether post-petition payments were or were not made.

[00:12:04] Speaker 00:
Ms.

[00:12:04] Speaker 00:
Sanders has provided several theories on why she claims that she has a

[00:12:09] Speaker 00:
submitted more payments than were in the post-petition payment accounting provided, and they specifically relate to forbearance and her half-fund application.

[00:12:21] Speaker 00:
With respect to her forbearance arguments, there is no dispute anywhere in her briefings or even on this argument on appeal that the forbearance period has now ended.

[00:12:33] Speaker 00:
The correspondence provided to Ms.

[00:12:35] Speaker 00:
Sanders following the termination of her forbearance clearly indicated that she would be required to pay the sums that were foreborn and that she could contact the lender to discuss her various repayment options in accordance with all of the federal guidelines and hints on how these issues should be handled.

[00:12:55] Speaker 00:
Ms.

[00:12:55] Speaker 00:
Sanders has never to date contacted the lender to exercise those options, and there's nothing in any of the Freddie Mac guidelines, statutory or otherwise, that require a lender to immediately offer options without application and further discussion.

[00:13:14] Speaker 00:
And there is no dispute

[00:13:15] Speaker 00:
anywhere in the record that the forbearance period ended and that those payments were not made and retendered in any way by Ms.

[00:13:25] Speaker 00:
Sanders.

[00:13:26] Speaker 00:
With respect to her half application, while there were some issues that occurred in the communications concerning

[00:13:39] Speaker 00:
of the application.

[00:13:40] Speaker 00:
Ms.

[00:13:41] Speaker 00:
Sanders doesn't dispute anywhere in the record that the half funds were returned and the half funds were required to be returned because the half funds are governed by the California government program and agency solely.

[00:13:55] Speaker 00:
The lender cannot make a unilateral decision to keep and apply funds when the government agency provides specific instructions as the controller of the program.

[00:14:07] Speaker 00:
to return those funds.

[00:14:08] Speaker 00:
And while those funds were tendered and were applied and found to be short, they were then unapplied and sent back per the requirements of the California Housing Finance Agency.

[00:14:20] Speaker 00:
the lender would have no absolute no discretion to change that, keep that, or do otherwise based on how that program is set up.

[00:14:29] Speaker 00:
While Ms.

[00:14:29] Speaker 00:
Sanders may have other remedies or issues that she thinks wrongdoings related to this case, those matters can be prosecuted outside

[00:14:42] Speaker 00:
in the state court or otherwise, and are not proper to be considered or prosecuted within the narrow purview and issue of final cure.

[00:14:50] Speaker 00:
Throughout the final cure proceedings, there were several opportunities for Ms.

[00:14:55] Speaker 00:
Sanders to provide briefing, including evidence of additional payments, and she failed to do so.

[00:15:03] Speaker 00:
There was never a time where she provided proof of additional payments, and in fact, she hasn't made a payment since October of 2018.

[00:15:12] Speaker 00:
alone is severely post-petitioned delinquent.

[00:15:15] Speaker 00:
And while she has made her effort at trying to cure some of these arrearages, the fact remains that those amounts have not been paid.

[00:15:26] Speaker 00:
There has not been a final cure.

[00:15:28] Speaker 00:
And the court correctly concluded that there was no triable issue of fact that those payments hadn't been made, both on the MSJ and on the reconsideration request because Ms.

[00:15:39] Speaker 00:
Sanders was making the same arguments that she made during the motion for summary judgment proceeding on reconsideration.

[00:15:46] Speaker 00:
I don't have any further argument or anything to add to my briefing.

[00:15:50] Speaker 00:
If the court has questions for me, I'm happy to answer them, but I feel like this is a very straightforward issue and narrow issue as I discussed.

[00:16:05] Speaker 02:
We can't hear you again, Julie, for some reason.

[00:16:08] Speaker 02:
I don't... Yeah.

[00:16:12] Speaker 04:
No.

[00:16:13] Speaker 02:
Now we can again.

[00:16:14] Speaker 04:
Now?

[00:16:14] Speaker 04:
All right.

[00:16:15] Speaker 04:
I'm getting as close to my computer as I possibly can.

[00:16:20] Speaker 04:
Ms.

[00:16:20] Speaker 04:
Glowen, so I just want to confirm, you know, it's your position that these other issues which are certainly concerning about the fact that there's just been

[00:16:34] Speaker 04:
a lot of confusion viewing it in the best light for the creditor as to what the amount owing is and errors regarding, as Judge Novak said, whipsawing the debtor with respect to the half funds.

[00:16:53] Speaker 04:
surprising her, basically, that the amount necessary to cure was greater than $80,000, that those really don't go to the issue that the court had to decide and that we are facing today, which is what is the correct cure amount?

[00:17:13] Speaker 04:
Is that correct?

[00:17:15] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:17:16] Speaker 04:
And so it's your position that any other claims that she might have with respect to those issues or something that would not be treated in this type of proceeding?

[00:17:27] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:17:28] Speaker 00:
All right.

[00:17:29] Speaker 04:
All right.

[00:17:30] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:17:32] Speaker 04:
Does anybody else have any questions?

[00:17:35] Speaker 02:
I don't.

[00:17:35] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:17:37] Speaker 04:
All right.

[00:17:37] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Ms.

[00:17:38] Speaker 04:
Glowen.

[00:17:41] Speaker 04:
Ms.

[00:17:41] Speaker 04:
Sanders, you have some time left.

[00:17:43] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:17:46] Speaker 03:
The issue with the COVID-19 forbearance is that it is under the CARES Act.

[00:17:54] Speaker 03:
It is not related or consistent.

[00:17:57] Speaker 03:
It is under the CARES Act.

[00:17:59] Speaker 03:
And initially, when face servicing took over the loan and started servicing the loan,

[00:18:05] Speaker 03:
They sent me a, it's a, for debt collections practices act validation notice where they demanded that I validate the debt in 30 days.

[00:18:17] Speaker 03:
And that was in January of 2021.

[00:18:20] Speaker 03:
Next, so I contacted them and I gave them the dates for my forbearance, which is, as I stated, it's in the confirmed chapter 13 claim, which is binding on all parties, case law,

[00:18:35] Speaker 03:
party, in party, and yes your honor.

[00:18:41] Speaker 02:
But isn't that forbearance period hasn't that expired?

[00:18:47] Speaker 03:
The well the problem with that is.

[00:18:49] Speaker 02:
Oh no just yes or no has isn't it correct that it has expired?

[00:18:59] Speaker 03:
The forbearance, the forbearance period was extended by FDMAC guidelines to the end of December of 2021.

[00:19:08] Speaker 03:
However, the plan states that post petition, and I have the provision right here,

[00:19:20] Speaker 03:
Let's write here.

[00:19:21] Speaker 03:
Okay, it says here, the debtor has requested and received the 12th month COVID-19 mortgage forbearance under the Coronavirus Aid Relief and Economic Securities Act of the CARES Act, which started on July 10, 2020 and shall conclude 12 months following July 10, 2020.

[00:19:39] Speaker 03:
Therefore, the debtor is not required to make post-petition monthly mortgage home loan payments at this time.

[00:19:46] Speaker 03:
But the important part of this is post-petition monthly mortgage home loan payments shall only be tendered in accordance by law under the coronavirus aid relief and economic security act.

[00:20:00] Speaker 03:
And in conjunction with any other applicable state federal laws and or upon the order of the court is required.

[00:20:08] Speaker 03:
And so the post petitions from the post petition payments from the point that the plan was confirmed those payments were to be

[00:20:18] Speaker 03:
given a exit strategy.

[00:20:21] Speaker 03:
So in essence, because they were only to be tendered under the CARES Act in conjunction with the Freddie Mac and FHA guidelines and some of the other guidelines that I had mentioned.

[00:20:32] Speaker 03:
The problem was that in June of 2021,

[00:20:38] Speaker 03:
I had contacted the servicer prior telling them that I was on a COVID-19 forbearance and I didn't understand where they were giving me this.

[00:20:48] Speaker 02:
Let me ask you another question, Ms.

[00:20:50] Speaker 02:
Sanders.

[00:20:52] Speaker 02:
Ms.

[00:20:52] Speaker 02:
Glowen made a statement as to when you made your last payment.

[00:20:59] Speaker 02:
When did you make your last payment?

[00:21:03] Speaker 02:
The payments that were made to... When did you make your last payment?

[00:21:09] Speaker 03:
The $77,000 payment was made on my behalf, and it's considered by Freddie Mac guidelines to be my payments made to the editor.

[00:21:20] Speaker 02:
That's the payment that the bankruptcy judge has talked about, the whipsaw relationship and so forth.

[00:21:27] Speaker 02:
But when was your last payment?

[00:21:30] Speaker 03:
Your Honor, respectfully, that was my last date.

[00:21:32] Speaker 02:
What's the date?

[00:21:32] Speaker 02:
What's the date?

[00:21:33] Speaker 02:
I'm not asking you what it was.

[00:21:34] Speaker 03:
What was the date of your last date?

[00:21:36] Speaker 03:
The payment was made and applied to my account in June of 2022 for $77,000.

[00:21:43] Speaker 03:
It was applied to my account and then face servicing.

[00:21:47] Speaker 02:
Any other payments other than the half funds?

[00:21:52] Speaker 03:
Yes, I have a list of that, Your Honor.

[00:21:54] Speaker 02:
After that point in time?

[00:21:57] Speaker 03:
no and the reason your honor so that the last the last payment was was the half payment yes your honor and your honor can i please add a crucial point the crucial point is is that in june on june 15 2021 face servicing sent me a letter through the consumer protection bureau where they specifically stated please be advised that your loan is not a freddie mac loan nor does

[00:22:24] Speaker 03:
nor is it an FHA loan.

[00:22:26] Speaker 03:
Your loan is owned by a private investor, and thus it does not qualify for Paris Act protections, as explained in the response sent to you on February 10, 2021.

[00:22:38] Speaker 03:
The prior servicer granted forbearance, and they have the incorrect dates for the forbearance.

[00:22:43] Speaker 03:
They have the backdated version.

[00:22:45] Speaker 03:
As such, the forbearance has expired, which was not true because it hadn't expired at that point.

[00:22:50] Speaker 03:
They insist here, they tell me, as such, the forbearance has expired and a forbearance extension is not available per the investor's criteria.

[00:23:00] Speaker 03:
And then they tell me a copy of our previous response, et cetera, et cetera.

[00:23:05] Speaker 03:
But they tell me here, they specifically state that I cannot

[00:23:10] Speaker 03:
apply for an exit strategy under Freddie Mac guidelines that I can only apply as they stated here.

[00:23:18] Speaker 03:
They want me to fill out a borrower assistance assistance form along with any supporting documents necessary.

[00:23:29] Speaker 03:
A blank back is enclosed and it's telling me here that

[00:23:33] Speaker 03:
Will not get the exit strategies that I am supposed to receive under my chapter 13 plan And that I will only get and they don't even tell me what it is.

[00:23:44] Speaker 03:
It says they will review it and Any further assistance options you must complete and return this it will be based on the new investors guidelines which is not correct because when the

[00:23:59] Speaker 03:
Even though the loan was sold, they still have to honor the loss mitigation that was in place because this loss mitigation was in place when Freddie Mac owned the loan.

[00:24:10] Speaker 03:
In addition to that, FHFA guidelines state that if you purchase a Freddie Mac loan, you have to continue to service the loan as if it was still owned by Freddie Mac.

[00:24:23] Speaker 03:
And so when they did that, they denied me of my exit strategy, and that was the problem, Your Honors.

[00:24:34] Speaker 03:
And so, does anyone have any questions?

[00:24:38] Speaker 04:
No, no, if you want to just make a final statement.

[00:24:42] Speaker 03:
Okay, I just wanted to add a couple of points until my time.

[00:24:46] Speaker 03:
Oh, it's almost out.

[00:24:48] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:24:50] Speaker 03:
All right, thank you.

[00:24:51] Speaker 03:
This matter is submitted.