Taliaferro v. Crola

DRAPER, J.

This is an action to quiet title. Plaintiff claims under deed and assignment from William S. Newman and wife, given in 1955. In 1950, the Newmans had executed a deed of trust naming the predecessor of defendant bank as beneficiary. Notice of default was filed and the property was sold under the power of sale contained in this deed of trust. Defendant Crola was the purchaser at this sale, which occurred after the deed and assignment to plaintiff. Defendant Hemleb is not a party named in any of the documents of title. Neither he nor the bank asserts any present title to the real property here in issue. After trial, judgment was ordered in favor of defendant Crola, title was quieted in her, and dismissal was ordered as to the bank and Hemleb. Plaintiff appeals.

Appellant’s principal contention is that the trial court erred in refusing to admit evidence offered by appellant concerning irregularities in the trustee’s sale. The case was tried and is argued here upon the theory that the deed of trust provided that recitals of a trustee’s deed thereunder should be conclusive evidence of the facts recited. The rule is clear that, in such case, the recitals of the trustee’s deed are conclusive, in the absence of fraud of which the purchaser at the trustee’s sale had knowledge or notice.

(Jose Realty Co.

v.

Pavlicevich,

164 Cal. 613 [130 P. 15]; see also

Pacific States S. & L. Co.

v.

O’Neill,

7 Cal.2d 596

[450]

[61 P.2d 1160];

Central Nat. Bank

v.

Bell,

5 Cal.2d 324 [54 P.2d 1107].) Such fraud need not be pleaded

(Jose Realty

v.