DiGregorio v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, 281 Or. App. 484

In 2007 Janine DiGregorio executed a note secured by a trust deed recorded in Clackamas County; MERS (as nominee for First Horizon) was listed as beneficiary and First American Title as trustee. Assignments transferring beneficial interest to First Horizon and then to Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC (Bayview) were recorded; Bayview appointed successor trustee Quality Loan Service Corp. (QLS).
DiGregorio defaulted on the loan; in 2012 QLS (at Bayview’s direction) recorded and mailed a notice of default and a trustee’s notice of sale that named MERS/as-nominee-for-First Horizon as the beneficiary (the notice did not name Bayview).
DiGregorio received the notice but did not act before the sale; at the trustee’s sale Bayview was the successful bidder and a trustee’s deed was recorded.
After the sale Bayview sued for forcible entry and detainer; DiGregorio sued for declaratory relief seeking to void the foreclosure on the sole ground that the trustee’s notice of sale misidentified the beneficiary.
Bayview moved for summary judgment arguing ORS 86.797 bars collateral post-sale challenges by persons who received notice; the trial court granted summary judgment for Bayview and entered restitution judgment. DiGregorio appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a post-sale collateral challenge based solely on a trustee’s notice that misidentifies the beneficiary is barred by ORS 86.797	DiGregorio: a notice that fails to correctly identify the beneficiary means the sale was not conducted “under ORS 86.705–86.815,” so ORS 86.797’s finality does not apply and the sale can be invalidated	Bayview: ORS 86.797 applies to trustee’s sales conducted under the OTDA and forecloses interests of persons who received notice; the statute does not require strict compliance with every OTDA provision for finality	Court: ORS 86.797 does not demand strict compliance with every OTDA provision; because DiGregorio received statutorily required notice, she cannot collaterally challenge the sale solely for misidentifying the beneficiary; summary judgment for Bayview affirmed

NW Property Wholesalers, LLC v. Spitz, 252 Or. App. 29 (discussing ORS 86.797’s effect on those who received notice)
Wolf v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC, 276 Or. App. 541 (interpreting limits of ORS 86.797 where a sale was not conducted by an actual trustee)
Brandrup v. ReconTrust Co., 353 Or. 668 (describing OTDA purposes and notice protections for grantors)
Staffordshire Investments, Inc. v. Cal-Western, 209 Or. App. 528 (explaining OTDA’s nonjudicial foreclosure mechanism and requirement of legal authority to sell)
State v. Gaines, 346 Or. 160 (statutory interpretation principles)