Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

The usual justification for non-judicial foreclosure in California is that the borrower has defaulted. If there are others, I can't think of them, but it's possible.

On the other hand, there is an old "legal Latin" expression, "fraus omnia corrumpit" (if memory serves) which means "fraud corrupts all." This rather broad expression has undergone some modifications in modern law, but in general many transactions containing a significant element of fraud are either totally void or voidable at the election of the defrauded party.

Nevertheless, in the context of non-judicial foreclosure, there is far less fraud than defaulting borrowers are led to believe by the rabble that is taking fees from them to bring suits against MERS, lenders, brokers, and the entire home-loan establishment. While I do not for a minute believe that these outlets are saintly, I'm pretty sure that many of the practices ascribed to them, such as using so-called "robo signers" and assistant vice-presidents who had no specific knowledge of the loans they were processing into foreclosure, are not fraudulent.

So, in my estimation, anyone attacking "self proclaimation" or "fraudulent entity" and "fraudulent documents" has a mountain of proof to climb to satisfy a court, meanwhile justifying their failure to make loan payments as agreed.

You are just rambling now.

If you are timely making monthly payments, then the foreclosure is wrongful, and a court with proper jurisdiction will issue an injunction to stop the foreclosure sale. If you are not making monthly payments, then you have defaulted.

If you signed a deed of trust, you consented to nonjudicial foreclosure, by deeding the power of sale to a trustee. A beneficiary can change trustee's simply by recording a substitution of trustee.

A lender transfers the debt by transferring the promissory note. No instrument has to be recorded. I've stated on here, in this forum, over and over again that an assignment of a deed of trust is not required. The Second District Court of Appeal just confirmed this earlier today. See: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B226494.PDF

You are not seeing the big picture. Assume for the sake of argument that the lender could not foreclose nonjudicially? In that situation, they could sue you on the note and get a judgment against you. They could then execute on the judgment, and take the house. If the house now sold for less at the sheriff's sale, you would now have a deficiency judgment against you. You don't want that. Are any bells ringing in your head now?