California Mortgage Law Threatens Foreclosures for Lenders

Share This Post:

A newly enacted California mortgage law, AB 130, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on June 30, 2025, is set to have a severe impact on lenders operating in the state of California. While primarily intended to address “zombie second mortgages,” the new law establishes California Civil Code 2924.13, which adds new hurdles for foreclosing on subordinate liens. 

We’ll break down how this California mortgage law could impact your business below.

What the Law Does

Section 2924.13 targets the foreclosure process for subordinate mortgages, which are loans that are junior to a first mortgage on a residential property. It is important to note that the statute does not further define residential property, so the new law currently would affect any junior lien secured by residential property.

The statute also does not distinguish between consumer or business purpose loans. Before foreclosing or threatening to foreclose on a second, a lender must record and mail to the borrower a certification under penalty of perjury that it did not commit any of several listed “unlawful practices,” which are defined as:

  • Failing to communicate in writing with the borrower for more than three years.
  • Failing to send any required notices of servicing or loan ownership transfers.
  • Attempting to foreclose after claiming the loan was discharged or sending an IRS 1099-C.
  • Initiating foreclosure after the statute of limitations has expired.
  • Failing to provide periodic account statements when legally required.

Otherwise, the lender must list all instances of “unlawful practices” committed by the current or any prior servicer, again, under the penalty of perjury. The lender must also notify the borrower to petition a court for a restraining order before the foreclosure sale.

Post-Sale Litigation Risk

The new California mortgage law now permits a borrower to request that a court set aside the nonjudicial foreclosure if:

  • The certification was not recorded, or
  • If the lender identifies any “unlawful practice” or
  • If the borrower claims that the lender misrepresented its compliance history. 

This does not affect past trustee’s sale or any sale to a bona fide purchaser, so this is limited to new nonjudicial foreclosures.

Courts are also empowered to strike all or a portion of the arrears claim, barring foreclosure, or permitting foreclosure subject to future compliance and a corrected arrearage claim.

Further, the law states that courts are now required to stop any foreclosure sale for a subordinated mortgage solely based on the borrower’s complaint to the court until the entire litigation has been resolved.

Pre-Foreclosure Hurdles Under California Mortgage Law

The new law adds multiple layers of compliance for lenders seeking to initiate nonjudicial foreclosure:

  1. Certification Requirement: The servicer must record a sworn certification confirming compliance with the law by itself and all past servicers.
  2. Borrower Notification: The borrower must receive a copy of the certification and a notice of their right to petition the court to stop the foreclosure sale.
  3. Litigation Pause: If the borrower files a petition before the sale, the foreclosure is paused until the court reaches a final decision.

Why This Is a Problem for Lenders

Private lenders, especially those purchasing distressed or seasoned second liens, are particularly vulnerable under this new framework:

  • Historical Compliance Burden: Lenders may now be accountable for the actions of all previous servicers, which is often impossible to confirm, especially for older loans or those acquired from entities that are no longer in business.
  • Document Gaps: Missing servicing transfer notices or account statements from years ago could disqualify a lender from foreclosing.
  • Litigation Explosion: Borrowers and their attorneys now have powerful tools to delay or invalidate foreclosures, significantly increasing legal costs and risk.
  • Chilling Effect on Loan Acquisitions: The law may stifle the secondary market for second liens in California, as the compliance burden and litigation risk make these loans far less attractive.

Get Legal Guidance Before You Foreclose

This new California mortgage law fundamentally changes the foreclosure process for subordinate liens, not in favor of lenders. With new risks, heightened documentation burdens, and expanded borrower rights, private lenders must proceed with extreme caution.

For strategic guidance, compliance audits, or foreclosure risk assessments, contact our team today.

Questions about this article? Reach out to our team below.
RELATED

California’s Anti-Deficiency Rules: What Lenders Can Recover — and Where Guaranties Fit

California’s anti-deficiency statutes can significantly limit what lenders recover after a real estate loan defaults. While the rules appear straightforward, recovery rights often depend on factors such as the foreclosure method, the nature of the loan, and the structure of any guaranties. Understanding how statutes like the “one-action rule,” purchase-money protections, and trustee’s sale restrictions interact is essential for lenders evaluating their options. This article explains the framework of California’s anti-deficiency laws and examines when guaranties remain an effective path for recovery and when courts may view them as an impermissible attempt to bypass borrower protections.

Crisis Management When Defaults and Foreclosures Climb in Debt Funds

Rising loan defaults and foreclosures can place significant pressure on debt funds, creating liquidity challenges, investor concerns, and increased legal risk. During these periods, fund managers must rely on disciplined crisis management strategies to protect investor capital and maintain confidence. Transparent investor reporting, proactive communication, and the strategic use of governance tools—such as redemption gates, holdbacks, and side-pocket accounts—can help stabilize operations while navigating periods of financial stress. This article explores practical best practices for managing rising defaults in debt funds, including investor relations strategies, liquidity management tools, and governance frameworks designed to mitigate risk and support effective crisis response.