Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California
In regards to the recent Massachusets court ruling on Bevilacqua vs. Rodriguez, how can I protect my family from the fall-out of this ruling?
We purchased a foreclosed home in 2008 and I am worried that the foreclosing bank never had clear title to the home they foreclosed. According to the recent ruling, I do not have title to the home because the bank that sold it to me, did not have clear title either.
So now, I am making payments on a mortgage for a home that I do not have title.
What should be my next step in protecting my family and our home?
3 Answers from Attorneys
I think you are reading into something way too much. California foreclosure law is very different from Massachusetts. Massachusetts uses mortgages with powers of sale, under a state scheme that provides for judicial supervision over the exercise of the power of sale. California does not mirror this procedure at all.
California uses deeds of trust. In California, the deeds of trust may be foreclosed nonjudicially at a trustee's sale, without judicial supervision, unless an aggrieved party files a lawsuit claiming that one of the statutory requirements governing trustee's sales have been violated.
If you are overly worried, I suggest speaking to an attorney to review your purchase and the underlying foreclosure, to determine whether you have anything to really worry about.
Is the property in Massachusetts or California? If it is not in Massachusetts, then the MA ruling is completely irrelevant. As Mr. Roach stated, the laws of the two states are very different, more importantly, however, nothing the MA courts say is in any way a part of the law in CA. Now if the property is in MA, you are going to have to ask this question of MA attorneys, not us.
My, word travels fast! The case of Bevilacqua v. Rodriguez was decided by the Massachusetts Supreme Court on October 18, 2011 (SJC-10880) and has not yet been officially reported. I have read part of the decision and skimmed the rest.
In California, the laws are quite different, and there is almost nothing in the Bevilacqua decision that could be cited in a California case where someone is claiming the trustee lacked the power to conduct a trustee sale. In Bevilacqua, there was no trustee and no trustee sale.
Here, a trustee's deed to a bona fide purchaser for value provides the purchaser with a special defense to any claim by a third party trying to invalidate the sale. See the California Supreme Court case of Weingard v. Atlantic Savings & Loan Association (1970) 1 Cal.3d 806 and Court of Appeal case Melendez v. D&I Investments, Inc. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1238. Also, California law presumes that a trustee's sale and the subsequent trustee's deed are valid; see Civil Code section 2924.
If you bought your home from a California trustee's sale, and received a recorded trustee's deed, and paid fair value without any skullduggery on your part, you are fully protected against any claim by any "true owner" or "true note holder" who might come along at this point. After all, it's been three years, a heckuva long time for a claimant to sit on any halfway viable claim. Further, any such claim might be enforceable against the trustee or the beneficiary for money damages, but there is no possibility of a successful claim against a bona fide purchaser for value.
Related Questions & Answers
-
Can we be forced to close escrow if we changed our mind? Asked 10/20/11, 7:58 pm in United States California Real Estate and Real Property