McLitus

U.S. Fin., L.P. v. McLitus

Good Law
2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 1057·211 Cal. Rptr. 3d 149·6 Cal. App. Supp. 5th 1
Superior Court of CaliforniaAugust 29, 2016No. 37-2016-00201116-CL-UD-CTLCalifornia709 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Reasonsccp, J.

BY THE COURT

*3 Code of Civil Procedure section 1161a requires a plaintiff to have both perfected the sale and the title in order to bring a summary unlawful detainer action for possession. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1161a, subd. (b)(3) ["Where the property has been sold in accordance with Section 2924 of the Civil Code, under a power of sale contained in a deed of trust executed by such person, or a person under whom such person claims, and the title under the sale has been duly perfected." 1 (Italics added.) ].)

( Baugh v. Consumers Associates, Limited (1966) 241 Cal.App.2d 672 , 674-675, 50 Cal.Rptr. 822 .)

Contrary to the plain reading of the statute, the trial court erroneously concluded "... that under California Civil Code section 2924h(c), title is deemed perfected as of 8 a.m. on the date of the sale because the trustee's deed upon sale was recorded within 15 calendar days." (Statement of Decision, italics added.)

In this case, the sale was perfected at the time the three-day notice was served, but not the title. Thus, the plaintiff could not provide defendant with a valid three-day notice. The court below mixed the issues of sale and title, but perfecting title is not…

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.