b"Buyer's Remorse continued from page 17attempt to reject it created an irregularnot establish irregularity of sale.Thererelief under the common law principle of a sale; (3) the sale was irregular becausewas no evidence establishing that theunilateral mistake of fact due to their own an employee of the foreclosing lenderbeneficiary had taken advantage oferror in judgment.was surprised at the high price paid forMatsons mistake, especially considering the junior deed of trust; and (4) Matsonsthat the beneficiary was not aware of theTakeaway from Matson v. S.B.S. unilateral mistake of fact allowed him towinning bid until after the sale was alreadyTrust Deed Networkset aside the sale. completed. Accordingly, Plaintiff failed to prove irregularity, fraud or unfairness inIn conclusion, servicers, beneficiaries Inequity in Price is Not Enough the nonjudicial foreclosure notice and saleand trustees should not be threatened proceedings. into rescinding a sale to a third-party A party can move, in equity, to set asidepurchaser based upon the buyers bad a nonjudicial foreclosure sale if there arebusiness decision or buyers remorse. irregularities in the notice or procedure ofAllowing a Buyer to Set Aside a Sale BasedThe purchaser must establish more than the sale.2Courts have held consistently thaton Their Own Mistake is Inconsistentinequity in price to establish a basis for a gross inadequacy of price coupled withwith the Policies Behind the Californiarescinding the sale.Absent evidence even slight unfairness or irregularity is aNonjudicial Foreclosure Statutes of irregularity, fraud or unfairness in the sufficient basis for setting the sale aside.3nonjudicial sale notice or proceedings, For instance, if a trustee or auctioneerMatson also argued that his unilateralthe sale stands.announces the wrong opening bid at themistake of fact entitled him to rescind the sale, the sale may be rescinded becausesale.However, the California non-judicialWright, Finlay & Zak, LLP specializes in such an error is an irregularity in theforeclosure statutes allow a beneficiary tomortgage-related litigation, compliance process.4However, where there is noa quick, inexpensive and efficient remedyand regulatory matters for its clients irregularity in the sale process, a greatwhen a borrower defaults on their note andthroughout the Western United States, disparity between the sales price and thedeed of trust.Allowing a buyer to rescindincluding California, Nevada, Arizona, value of the property alone, is not sufficienta sale based on his own bad businessWashington, Utah and Oregon.If you have to set aside the sale.5 decision would upend the finality ofany questions regarding this article, please the sale and the statutory intent that acontact Cathy Robinson at crobinson@In Matson, there was no dispute that theproperly conducted sale be final amongwrightlegal.net or Robert Finlay at rfinlay@price paid by Matson was in disparitythe parties.6 wrightlegal.net.with the value of the property, which he purchased subject to the senior lien.Similarly, Matson attempted to rescind Therefore, the issue before the courtthe sale by arguing he had a common-lawCathy K. Robinson is a Partner in Wright was whether there was any irregularityremedy pursuant to Donovan v. RRL Corp.,Finlay & Zak, LLPs California office.T. in the sale notice or procedure, becausewhich allows a party to rescission basedRobert Finlay is a founding Partner of inequality in price was not enough toupon a unilateral mistake.However, oneWright Finlay & Zak, LLP.set aside the sale.The court concludedof the elements required by the holding that Matson produced no evidencein Donovan is that the plaintiff does not 7 Endnotesdemonstrating an irregularity in the noticebear the risk of the mistake. A purchaser or procedure of the sale.The foreclosureof property at a foreclosure sale, such as1Matson v. S.B.S. Trust Deed Network, 2020 WL was properly noticed, published andMatson, bears the risk of mistake when he1060245 (03/05/2020).cried.The fact that the trustee, not theis aware, at the time the contract is made,2Lona v. Citibank, N.A., (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th successful bidder Matson, recorded thethat he has only limited knowledge with89, 103-104.TDUS was meaningless, as the sale wasrespect to the facts to which the mistake3Biancalana v. TD Services Co., (2013) 56 Cal.4th complete the moment the winning bidrelates but treats his limited knowledge807, 813.was accepted, making the recording ofas sufficient.8Matson admitted he had4Biancalana v. TD Services Co., (2013) 56 Cal.4th the TDUS simply a ministerial act.Likewise,received a property profile from a titleat 818.Matsons attempt to reject the TDUS aftercompany, but did not review it in its entirety5Alliance Mortgage Co. v. Rothwell, (1995) 10 the trustees sale had no legal effect asbefore bidding on the property.Therefore,Cal.4th 1226, 1237.the sale was completed upon acceptancehe assumed the risk by bidding on the6Matson v. S.B.S. Trust Deed Network, 2020 of the final bid, and said rejection did notproperty with limited knowledge of whatWL at 6; citing, Moeller v. Lien, (1994) 25 Cal.establish irregularity in the sale process forhe was attempting to purchase.BiddersApp.4th 822, 830.purposes of rescinding the sale.Further,at foreclosure sales have a duty to conduct7Donovan v. RRL Corp., (2001) 26 Cal.4th 261, the foreclosing beneficiarys surprise attheir own due diligence before bidding282.the high price paid for the junior lien didat the sale, and they are not entitled to8Donovan v. RRL Corp., (2001) 26 Cal.4th at 283.Page 18Summer 2020Points of Interest"