6 Cal. App. Supp. 5th 1
Cal. Super. Ct.2016Background
- Plaintiff (post-foreclosure purchaser) initiated an unlawful detainer action after a trustee's sale; trial court found title "deemed perfected" under Civ. Code §2924h(c) because the trustee's deed was recorded within 15 days.
- At the time the three-day notice was served, the trustee's sale had been perfected but the purchaser had not yet "duly perfected" title.
- Defendant challenged the sufficiency of the three-day notice, arguing the notice falsely asserted that title had been duly perfected.
- The trial court entered judgment for possession; appellant appealed arguing the notice was fatally defective because title was not perfected when the notice was served.
- The appellate court evaluated whether perfection of sale (per §2924h) and perfection of title are interchangeable for purposes of issuing a valid three-day notice and bringing an unlawful detainer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a purchaser may issue a three‑day notice and bring unlawful detainer once the sale is "perfected" under Civ. Code §2924h(c) even if title is not yet duly perfected | Sale is deemed perfected as of 8 a.m. on sale date if deed is recorded within 15 days, so purchaser may issue notice once sale is "perfected" under §2924h | A valid three‑day notice requires that title be duly perfected before notice; issuing notice before title is perfected is defective and premature | Court held §2924h defines perfection of the sale but does not substitute for "duly perfected" title; notice was defective and judgment reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Baugh v. Consumers Associates, Ltd., 241 Cal.App.2d 672 (recognizing unlawful detainer statutes are strictly construed and purely statutory)
- Kessler v. Bridge, 161 Cal.App.2d Supp. 837 (defining "duly perfected" title as all elements necessary to a valid sale, including good record title)
- Garfinkle v. Superior Court, 21 Cal.3d 268 (trustee's deed recording is prerequisite to purchaser bringing unlawful detainer)
- Stonehouse Homes v. City of Sierra Madre, 167 Cal.App.4th 531 (unlawful detainer not ripe until title is duly perfected)
- Salazar v. Thomas, 236 Cal.App.4th 467 (reiterating that purchaser may bring unlawful detainer after trustee's deed is recorded)
- Bevill v. Zoura, 27 Cal.App.4th 694 (validity of three‑day notice requires strict statutory compliance)
Decision: Unanimously reversed and remanded; trial court to vacate the judgment and proceed consistent with opinion. Appellant awarded costs on appeal.