The court also said “[t]here was no information in the Court's file about what the property in question was actually worth in the declining real estate market.” T.D. filed a motion for reconsideration after the Third District Court of Appeal decided Millennium Rock Mortgage, Inc. v. T.D. Service Co. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 804, 102 Cal.Rptr.3d 544( Millennium Rock ), claiming that the decision represented a significant change in the law. The trial court granted T.D.'s motion for reconsideration and, following a hearing, granted summary judgment in favor of T.D. Biancalana appealed.
On appeal, Biancalana argues that the trial court erred in granting TD's motion for summary judgment as there was no irregularity in the foreclosure sale process. Biancalana also argues that the trial court erred in granting TD's motion for reconsideration as the case it determined constituted “new law” (i.e., Millennium Rock Mortgage, Inc. v. T.D. Service Co. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 804, 102 Cal.Rptr.3d 544 ( Millennium Rock )) did not represent a change in the law, but simply applied existing law to a new fact pattern. We agree that the trial court erred in granting TD's motion for summary judgment and shall reverse the judgment.
If the trustee's deed recites that all statutory notice requirements and procedures required by law for the conduct of the foreclosure have been satisfied, a rebuttable presumption arises that the sale has been conducted regularly and properly; this presumption is conclusive as to a bona fide purchaser.' " (Millennium Rock Mortgage, Inc. v. T.D. Service Co. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 804, 809 (Millennium Rock).) All undesignated section references are to the Civil Code.
The purpose of this statutory scheme is threefold: to provide a creditor or beneficiary with a quick, inexpensive and efficient remedy against a defaulting debtor; to protect the debtor from wrongful loss of the property; and to ensure that a properly conducted sale is final between the parties and conclusive for a bona fide purchaser. (Millennium Rock Mortgage, Inc. v. T.D. Service Co. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 804, 809 (Millennium); Melendrez, supra, 127 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1249-1250.) Under these provisions, when a trustee delivers a deed to a buyer at a foreclosure sale and that deed recites that all procedural requirements for the default and sale notices have been met, a rebuttable presumption that these notice requirements have been satisfied applies.
So long as the foreclosure sale is conducted " regularly and properly, " it is presumed valid, and the execution and delivery of a trustee's deed evidencing the transfer of title is a mere ministerial act. See Millennium Rock Mortgage, Inc. v. T.D. Serv. Co., 179 Cal.App.4th 804, 809, 102 Cal.Rptr.3d 544, 548 (2009); Ballengee v. Sadlier, 179 Cal.App.3d 1, 4, 224 Cal.Rptr. 301, 302 (1986). However, if there is a defect in procedure, unfairness or fraud leading up to the foreclosure sale, it is voidable.
The trustee's acceptance of a final bid is generally the point at which a foreclosure sale is deemed complete. (Millenium Rock Mortgage, Inc. v. T.D. Service Co. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 804, 809 (Millenium Rock); 5 Miller &Starr, Cal. Real Estate (4th ed. 2024) Deeds of Trust and Mortgages, § 13.250 (Miller &Starr).) However, prior to the actual delivery of the trustee's deed upon sale to the purchaser, the trustee retains the power to rescind the sale under limited circumstances.
In Crofoot v. Tarman (1957) 147 Cal.App.2d 443, 446, the court referred to "the well-settled rule that, although inadequacy of price standing alone will not afford ground for setting aside a trustee's sale, yet gross inadequacy of price in conjunction with irregularities which have the effect of conducing to the inadequacy of price or which have in some other way contributed to the injury to the trustor will afford such support." (See also Millennium Rock Mortgage Inc. v. T.D. Service Co. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 804, 810 (Millennium) ["''While mere inadequacy of price, standing alone, will not justify setting aside a trustee's sale, gross inadequacy of price coupled with even slight unfairness or irregularity is a sufficient basis for setting the sale aside"'"].)
We apply the following standard of review: "In determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction, the trial court considers two related factors: (1) the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits of its case at trial, and (2) the interim harm that the plaintiff is likely to sustain if the injunction is denied as compared to the harm that the defendant is likely to suffer if the court grants a preliminary injunction." (Millennium Rock Mortgage, Inc. v. T.D. Service Co. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 804, 808; O'Connell v. Superior Court (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1463.) A ruling on an application for preliminary injunction is generally reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
CitiMortgage attempts to rely on a "rebuttable presumption" that a sale has been conducted properly as long as the trustee's deed recites that the statutory notice requirements and procedures have been satisfied. (Mot. at 10 (citing Millenium Rock Mortg., Inc. v. T.D. Serv. Co., 179 Cal.App.4th 804, 809 (Cal.Ct.App. 2009)).) However, a rebuttable presumption is just that-rebuttable.
Because many of these contentions turn on questions of statutory interpretation or other questions of law, we review such claims de novo. ( Millennium Rock Mortgage, Inc. v. T.D. Service Co . (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 804, 808–809, 102 Cal.Rptr.3d 544.) Where other standards of review are applicable to our analysis, we discuss our review of those matters below.i.