Hallas

MEMORANDUM *

Peggy Hallas appeals the magistrate judge’s 1 summary judgment in favor of appellees. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, see Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692, 698 (9th. Cir.2005), and we affirm.

Reformation of the deed of trust is appropriate here. 2 First, the deed of trust may be reformed after the foreclosure sale. See Rogers v. Miller, 13 Wash. 82 , 42 P. 525, 525-26 (1895) (permitting reformation after a foreclosure sale).

Second, the undisputed facts clearly and convincingly show that, at the time the deed of trust was signed, Hallas and Ameriquest shared an identical intent — namely, for Ameriquest to take a security interest in Hallas’ property and to reflect that interest in the loan documents. See Saterlie v. Lineberry, 92 Wash.App. 624 , 962 P.2d 863, 865 (1998); Snyder v. Peterson, 62 Wash.App. 522 , 814 P.2d 1204, 1206-08 (1991); Tenco, Inc. v. Manning, 59 Wash.2d 479 , 368 P.2d 372, 373-74 (1962); Maxwell v. Maxwell, 12 Wash.2d 589 , 123 P.2d 335, 337 (1942).

Third, Hallas’ equitable defenses to reformation fail. Insertion of the correct property description into the deed of trust after it was signed does not,…