Every week: one real lawsuit filed over a California foreclosure, taken apart.
The File
Case: Azria Family Trust v. UBS Bank USA
Court: United States District Court, Central District of California
Filed: August 18, 2026. Represented by counsel.
Property: Single-family property, Los Angeles.
Loan: Deed of trust. $30,000,000, recorded December 2017, matures January 1, 2048 per the recorded deed of trust.
Claims: Seven, in four groups. Federal servicing rules, surety status, foreclosure documents, and a 45-day postponement.
Relief sought: An injunction against further action on the Notice of Default (or, alternatively, any notice of sale before October 26, 2026), and declarations that the Trust is only a surety.
Exhibits attached: None.
The Timeline
7/26/2005. A grant deed records conveying the property from the trustee of another trust to the two trustees of the Azria Family Trust for “a valuable consideration.”
12/20/2017. A deed of trust records for a $30,000,000 loan secured by the property.
2022. The complaint alleges a modification made Azria’s widow the only borrower.
11/19/2025. An affidavit records, signed by the Trust’s two current co-trustees. It states the Trust’s sole trustee was suspended by a court effective 12/19/2024 and that the co-trustees took office effective 7/24/2025.
5/22/2026. The Notice of Default records. It states payment has not been made of installments due 5/1/2025 and after, and $2,444,361.12 as of that date to bring the account current.
8/18/2026. The complaint is filed, 88 days after the Notice of Default recorded.
10/26/2026. The date before which the complaint asks the court to bar any notice of trustee’s sale.
The Money
$30,000,000.00. Original loan amount, per the recorded deed of trust.
$2,444,361.12. Amount stated on the Notice of Default to bring the account current, as of May 22, 2026.
Claim 1. Federal Servicing Rules: Loss Mitigation (12 C.F.R. § 1024.41)
The count asks for relief only “to the extent that” the bank proceeds against the Trust as a borrower, and the same complaint alleges a 2022 modification made an individual the only borrower.
What the regulation requires
A servicer that receives a complete loss mitigation application more than 37 days before a sale must evaluate the borrower and send a written determination within 30 days (§ 1024.41(c)(1)). A loss mitigation application is a request “accompanied by any information required by a servicer for evaluation” (§ 1024.31).
What the Trust alleges
The Trust alleges it repeatedly asked to submit an application and the bank refused because it says the Trust is not a borrower. It alleges it has not submitted one because the bank will not provide the information needed, and asks for a declaration that, if the bank proceeds against it as a borrower, the bank must process its “intended loss-mitigation application.”
What the record shows
The complaint attaches no exhibits, so no request or refusal is attached, and neither is the 2022 modification.
Claim 2. Surety Status and the Bank’s Remedies (Civ. Code § 2845)
The Trust asks the court to declare it only a surety, the opposite of the co-borrower status the complaint pleads first.
What the statute requires
A surety may require the creditor, subject to Code of Civil Procedure § 996.440, “to proceed against the principal, or to pursue any other remedy in the creditor’s power which the surety cannot pursue, and which would lighten the surety’s burden.” If the creditor neglects to do so, “the surety is exonerated to the extent to which the surety is thereby prejudiced.”
What the Trust alleges
The complaint first alleges the Trust signed the note as a jointly and severally liable co-borrower, then alleges in the alternative that it is only secondarily liable and that the bank must first pursue the individual it calls the borrower, a written demand to that effect having gone unanswered. It asks for a declaration that the bank “has no further right of action on the note or deed of trust.”
What the record shows
The complaint attaches no exhibits, so the note, the modification and the written demand it alleges are not attached.
Claim 3. Accurate Foreclosure Documents (Civ. Code §§ 2924.17, 2924.19, 2924.12)
The Trust says the Notice of Default lacks competent and reliable evidence of the default and of the right to foreclose. The complaint does not identify a false statement in any recorded document.
What the statutes require
A recorded Notice of Default must be accurate and complete and supported by competent and reliable evidence, and the servicer must review that evidence before recording (§ 2924.17(a), (b)).
Before the trustee’s deed records, a borrower may seek an injunction against a material violation (§ 2924.12(a)(1)).
What the Trust alleges
The Trust alleges, on information and belief, that it did not receive the written notice the deed of trust requires before acceleration because the bank does not treat it as a borrower. It alleges a written demand to rescind the Notice of Default went unanswered.
What the record shows
The Notice of Default recorded May 22, 2026 states that payment has not been made of the installments due May 1, 2025 and after, and states $2,444,361.12 as of that date to bring the account current.
An assignment recorded August 19, 2025, before the Notice of Default, moved the beneficial interest to the bank.
Claim 4. The 45-Day Postponement for a Listing Agreement (Civ. Code § 2924f(e)(1))
The 45 days run from a scheduled sale date. The complaint pleads no scheduled sale date and no Notice of Trustee’s Sale.
What the statute requires
A sale of residential property of no more than four dwelling units “shall not be conducted until the expiration of an additional 45 days following the scheduled date of sale” if the trustee receives a listing agreement from the mortgagor or trustor, by certified mail or tracked overnight courier, at least five business days before that date. Section 2924f is scheduled to be repealed on January 1, 2031 unless extended.
What the Trust alleges
The Trust alleges, in the alternative, that it sent listing agreement documents to the bank’s trustee and, on information and belief, that the bank refuses them because they were mailed before a Notice of Trustee’s Sale recorded. It also alleges, citing § 2924b, a failure to give notice of the recorded Notice of Default, without saying to whom or how. It seeks an order barring any notice of sale before October 26, 2026.
What the record shows
The complaint states no trustee’s deed has been recorded and pleads no scheduled sale date, mailing date or delivery method. No Notice of Trustee’s Sale is attached or alleged.
🔒 Paid below: the takeaway and three lessons for lenders.
