Tonini v. Recontrust Co. CA4/1, D066600

Background

Tonini obtained a residential loan in 2006 secured by a deed of trust naming MERS as beneficiary; he defaulted.
In 2012 MERS assigned the beneficial interest to Deutsche Bank and ReconTrust was substituted as trustee; notices of default and trustee sale were recorded in 2012–2013.
Tonini sued (FAC) asserting six causes of action alleging the assignment/foreclosure were invalid because the assignment post‑dated the PSA closing, was robo‑signed, and the note had been separated from the deed of trust.
Defendants demurred, asserted Tonini lacked standing to bring a preemptive challenge to a pending nonjudicial foreclosure and that he had not tendered the debt; the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed.
On appeal the court considered the California Supreme Court's decision in Yvanova and related authority but affirmed: Tonini failed to plead facts showing the assignments were void on their face or that he had standing to bring a preemptive suit or to quiet title without tender.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to challenge assignments pre‑foreclosure	Tonini argued he could preemptively challenge the assignment/foreclosure as invalid or void (timing/signature defects)	Defendants argued preemptive suits are generally improper and Tonini lacked standing absent a completed foreclosure or facts showing a facially void assignment	Court: Yvanova gives post‑foreclosure plaintiffs standing to challenge void assignments, but does not extend automatic standing for preemptive suits; Tonini failed to plead facts showing the assignments were void and thus lacked standing
Effect of untimely or defective assignment into a pooled trust (PSA)	Assignment after the PSA closing or robo‑signing made transfer void, depriving defendants of authority to foreclose	Defendants: such defects (timing/signature) are at most voidable, subject to ratification, and do not defeat a nonjudicial foreclosure absent stronger facts	Court: Untimely or defective transfers are not shown to be void on their face; treated as voidable; plaintiff cannot rely on speculative “information and belief” allegations
Tender requirement / quiet title	Tonini claimed tender should be excused because he could not know the proper party to accept payment and the foreclosure was unauthorized	Defendants: plaintiff defaulted and failed to tender, so he cannot challenge foreclosure or obtain quiet title	Court: Tender is required for relief and is not excused on this record; quiet title and wrongful foreclosure claims fail without tender or a pleaded facially void assignment
Adequacy of pleading and leave to amend	Tonini argued he could cure defects with facts about PSA and assignment timing	Defendants: claims were conclusory and lacked specific facts; demurrer proper and denial of leave justified	Court: Plaintiff did not show a reasonable possibility of curing defects; demurrer sustained without leave to amend was not an abuse of discretion

Key Cases Cited

Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp., 62 Cal.4th 919 (Cal. 2016) (borrower who suffered completed nonjudicial foreclosure may have standing to challenge a foreclosure based on a facially void assignment)
Saterbak v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 245 Cal.App.4th 808 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (preemptive suits to stop nonjudicial foreclosure are disfavored; untimely assignment treated as voidable)
Gomes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 192 Cal.App.4th 1149 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (policy reasons against judicially adjudicating authorization to foreclose in advance)
Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 198 Cal.App.4th 256 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (presumption of regularity for nonjudicial foreclosure; borrower must plead facts to overcome it)
Glaski v. Bank of America, 218 Cal.App.4th 1079 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (addressed standing to challenge void assignments—distinguished/limited by later authority)
Lona v. Citibank, N.A., 202 Cal.App.4th 89 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (elements of wrongful foreclosure claim)