California Court of Appeal

In this case, plaintiffs assert that the sale of their foreclosed property was void due to irregularities in the foreclosure proceedings. Judgment of dismissal is affirmed, where: 1) there was no statutory defect in the manner or timing of the trustee substitution, but even if so, the entity was otherwise authorized to act for defendant in filing the notice of default because it was alleged that the entity was at all times acting as the agent of defendant; 2) any alleged defect or omission in the representation of defendant at the time the notice of default was filed was not substantial within the meaning of the law of foreclosure, making the subsequent sale voidable, not void; and 3) because the sale was only voidable, the borrowers in default were required to allege tender and prejudice, which they did not do.

Appellate Information

• Decided 02/06/2015
• Published 02/06/2015

Judges

• Ruvolo

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel