The UCL and wrongful foreclosure: Glaski v. Bank of America, N.A.

In Glaski v. Bank of America, N.A., ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Jul. 31, 2013; pub. ord. Aug. 8, 2013), an individual wrongful foreclosure action, the Fifth District has a single paragraph addressing the UCL:

Basedon the foregoing, we conclude that Glaski’s fourth cause of action has stated aclaim for wrongful foreclosure.  Itfollows that Glaski also has stated claims for quiet title (third cause ofaction), declaratory relief (fifth cause of action), cancellation ofinstruments (eighth cause of action), and unfair business practices underBusiness and Professions Code section 17200 (ninth cause of action).  (See Susilov. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (C.D.Cal. 2011) 796 F.Supp.2d 1177, 1196[plaintiff’s wrongful foreclosure claims served as predicate violations for herUCL claim].)

Slip op. at 26-27.  The citation to a federal district court decision suggests that no other California Court of Appeal opinion has addressed whether conduct constituting wrongful foreclosure (which is a catch-all term that can encompass a variety of defects in the foreclosure process, including statutory violations) can form the predicate for a UCL claim. There's no reason why it shouldn't, particularly after Rose and Zhang reconfirmed the broad scope of the UCL's "unlawful" prong.