Oller v. Sonoma County Land Title Co.

137 Cal.App.2d 633 (1955) C. R. OLLER et al., Appellants,

v.

SONOMA COUNTY LAND TITLE COMPANY (a Corporation) et al., Respondents.

Civ. No. 8626. California Court of Appeals. Third Dist.

Dec. 8, 1955. George E. Dilley for Appellants.

Edward T. Koford and Barrett & McConnell, for Respondents.

PEEK, J.

Plaintiffs instituted this action to set aside a sale under a deed of trust. By the terms of the instrument, plaintiffs as trustors transferred to defendant Sonoma County [634] Land Title Company, as trustee, certain land in Sonoma County to secure money loaned to plaintiffs by defendant Pieroni, the beneficiary. The defendant John Chalmers was the purchaser at the sale. Defendant Edna Chalmers filed a disclaimer and the defendant Pieroni was not served with process. From a judgment in favor of defendants the plaintiffs now appeal, contending that the foreclosure proceedings were improper; that the trustee was guilty of bad faith; and that the property was sold for a grossly inadequate price. We conclude that none of such contentions can be sustained.

[1] Plaintiffs first attack the foreclosure proceedings under the deed of trust, arguing that they were irregular in that the oral announcement of postponement made by an officer of the trustee was made when no one was present and hence was insufficient notice of the time and place of the postponed sale. The record, however, discloses additional evidence that the defendants Chalmers and one Poulsen were present and heard the announcement, and that the plaintiff C. R. Oller was not present. Here the deed of trust expressly authorized the trustee to postpone the sale by oral proclamation. Thus when the defendants' officer, at the time and place fixed in the original notice of sale and without further publication and posting by oral proclamation, postponed the sale to a definite future date, he was acting validly within the express provisions of the deed of trust. (Mack v. Golino, 95 Cal.App.2d 731, 734 [213 P.2d 760].) "No other notice of postponed sale need be given." (Code Civ. Proc., 694.) Since the rule in this state is so well established, any discussion of the cases from other jurisdictions cited and relied upon by plaintiffs' counsel would appear unnecessary.