There are still all of those reasons to criticize the California decision. It is a "non-judicial" state, and even the opinion states that the opinion is on a limited and narrow issue. However, in Yvanova, the Court discusses the issue with such clarity and in such plain language that Courts will be hard pressed to ignore its holding. Yvanova starts with the simple premise that only a person or entity with an interest in the promissory note or mortgage can sue to enforce the promissory note or foreclose upon the mortgage. (A simple concept that the Courts and Banks have contorted into unrecognizable pretzel like images of the original concept.). Yvanova then discusses the difference between a void and a voidable transaction.
The Yvanova Court discusses many of the other cases from other jurisdictions that the Ohio Courts have ignored and continue to ignore. However, the California Supreme Court has gathered many of these cases from other jurisdictions in one place and discusses them all in detail. In Yvanova the Court addresses the debate; engages in the debate, and makes a well reasoned choice between the two sides. Yvanova determines that the Homeowner can challenge the validity of an assignment as being void, and does so in a manner that does not appear to be the result of result oriented circuitous reasoning.
With the recent decision of U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. George (Ohio App. 10th Dist.), 2015-Ohio-4957, and Anh Nguyet Tran vs. Bank of New York Petition for Writ of Certiorari, the issue of standing, and now the California Supreme Court issuing a well reasoned opinion in support of the homeowners right to challenge the validity of an assignment, it may be that the tide is turning in favor of the homeowner.