Central National Bank v. Bell

California Supreme Court Feb 11, 1936 No. Sac. 4929Published

Before: Shenk

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trustees' sales were valid because the trust deeds authorized the procedures used, and the defendants were precluded from challenging the recitals in the trustees' deeds absent proof of actual fraud or oppression.

Issues

Whether a trustee's sale held in a location authorized by the trust deed is valid despite subsequent statutory amendments regarding venue.
Whether recitals in a trustee's deed regarding notice and procedure are conclusive evidence of those facts.
Whether mere inadequacy of price or procedural irregularities constitute sufficient grounds to set aside a trustee's sale without proof of actual fraud.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Inasmuch as it expressly authorized the sale to be held in Alameda County there was no invalidity by reason of the sale having been held in the city of Oakland.”

“In this action and on the record before us the defendants were concluded by the recitals in the trustees’ deeds.”

“It is no new doctrine in this state that mere inadequacy of price is not sufficient ground for setting aside a trustee’s sale legally conducted, in the absence of proof of some element of fraud, unfairness or oppression”

SHENK, J.

The plaintiff, an insolvent national banking association, acting through its duly qualified receiver, brought this action to quiet its title to and recover possession of 8,000 acres of land consisting of town lots and acreage, situated partly in Stanislaus County and partly in Merced County. Some of the answering defendants denied the plaintiff’s title deraigned through sales under deeds of trust, and alleged fraud and conspiracy in the conduct of the sales thereunder. The issues were tried, some before the court with a jury, and the equitable issues by the court without a jury. The court granted the plaintiff’s motion for a directed verdict on the issues tried before the jury. Judgment for the plaintiff was entered pursuant to the verdict so directed and the findings of the court. This appeal followed.

[326]

In 1930 the defendant Louis M. Hickman, a corporation, owned the land in question. In that year it executed its deed of trust convening the land as security, for the repayment to the plaintiff of a loan of $71,000. Subsequently the corporation deeded the land to the defendant Progressive Land and Development Company. The corporation’s default in payment occurred and in 1931 the trustees conducted a sale of the property pursuant to notice which designated the city of Oakland, county of Alameda, as the place of sale. At the time and place so noticed the property was offered

en masse

and was sold to the plaintiff bank for the sum of $76,000, the plaintiff having been the highest bidder. Subsequently the bank conveyed the property to the defendant Henry Bell, who was a nominee of the Progressive Land and Development Company, in return for a note and deed of trust on the property securing payment of $76,000 to the plaintiff. Default was committed under this note and trust deed and a second trustee’s sale was held in the county of Stanislaus. The original published time for the sale was April 26, 1933. The sale was not concluded on the day noticed, but by oral proclamation, in accordance with the provisions of the trust deed, the sale was postponed four times until it was finally consummated on August 8th. The land was first offered in parcels with the statement that the trustees reserved the right to offer the-property also

en masse

Central National Bank v. Bell

AI Brief

SHENK, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief