Melendrez

Melendrez v. D & I INVESTMENT, INC.

Good Law
127 Cal. App. 4th 1238·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 488·2005 Daily Journal DAR 3656·26 Cal. Rptr. 3d 413·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2684
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 29, 2005H027098California9,343 words

Opinion

Opinion

Premo, J.

Miguel and Maria Melendrez (Borrowers) lost their Watson-ville home through a nonjudicial foreclosure sale in July 2001, approximately eight months after their loan default. The residence was purchased by a third party, defendant Royal Realty (Buyer). Borrowers thereafter sued to set aside the trustee’s sale and to cancel the trustee’s deed. They claimed that the sale was in violation of a repayment agreement (which included a conditional agreement to postpone the sale) with their lender, Washington Mutual Bank, N.A. (Lender), and thus violated Civil Code section 2924g, subdivision (c)(2).

After a three-day bench trial, the court concluded that the trustee’s sale was valid. It decided that the sale did not violate the repayment agreement between Borrowers and Lender. It held further that Buyer was a bona fide purchaser for value (BFP) of the property at the sale.

Borrowers appeal. They argue that the trustee’s sale was invalid because it took place notwithstanding a repayment agreement under which Lender agreed to postpone the sale. Borrowers contend further that the court erred by applying the wrong legal standard in reaching the conclusion that Buyer was a BFP. They…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.