Carter v. Continental Land Title Co.

233 Cal. App. 3d 1597, 285 Cal. Rptr. 413, 91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7411, 91 Daily Journal DAR 11263, 1991 Cal. App. LEXIS 1048
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedSeptember 12, 1991
DocketB046830
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 233 Cal. App. 3d 1597 (Carter v. Continental Land Title Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Carter v. Continental Land Title Co., 233 Cal. App. 3d 1597, 285 Cal. Rptr. 413, 91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7411, 91 Daily Journal DAR 11263, 1991 Cal. App. LEXIS 1048 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinion

Opinion

ASHBY, J.

By nonjury trial plaintiff and respondent Charley Carter obtained a money judgment against defendant and appellant Continental Land Title Company, for wrongful reconveyance of a deed of trust.

Civil Code section 2941.7 provides a procedure by which a borrower may obtain reconveyance of a trust deed, when the obligation secured by the trust deed has been paid and the lender cannot be located or refuses to request the trustee to reconvey. (Generally see 4 Miller & Starr, Cal. Real Estate 2d (1989) § 9:91, pp. 288-290; 4 Augustine & Zarrow, Cal. Real Estate Law & Practice (1991) § 115.02, pp. 115-6 to 115-10.) 1

*1015 The borrower (trustor) may file a declaration and post a corporate surety bond for the protection of both the beneficiary and the trustee. The trustee must then reconvey the trust deed. The beneficiary loses the security provided by the property and is relegated to a remedy against the trustor, the affiant or the surety bond.

The surety bond must be acceptable to the trustee. In this case the surety bond provided by the trustor expired by its own terms in 60 days. We hold the trial court properly found appellant trustee should not have accepted a bond with such a short time limit and is therefore liable for wrongful reconveyance.

Facts

Shooting Star International Investment, Inc., a California corporation, borrowed $30,000 from Larry Golphenee. The promissory note was secured by a deed of trust on a 40-unit condominium complex.

The parties to this lawsuit are all assignees or successors in interest to the original borrower, lender, and trustee under deed of trust. Codefendant William E. Crowder stands in the position of the trustor (borrower). Appellant Continental Land Title Company is successor to the trustee under deed of trust. Respondent Carter stands in the position of the beneficiary (lender) whose note for $30,000 was originally secured by the deed of trust. 2

Utilizing the procedure of Civil Code section 2941.7, Crowder falsely declared that the obligation had been paid and that the beneficiary of the deed of trust, O’Brien, could not be found. 3

The corporate surety bond provided by Crowder expired by its own terms 60 days following reconveyance.

Appellant Continental Land Title Company as trustee reconveyed the trust deed to Crowder in reliance upon Crowder’s declaration and corporate surety bond recorded pursuant to the statute.

Respondent Carter obtained the note from O’Brien after expiration of the surety bond.

*1016 Discussion

Appellant contends that under Civil Code section 2941.7, subdivision (c) appellant had no choice but to issue the reconveyance upon Crowder’s recordation of a declaration and corporate surety bond, and appellant is immune from liability. This argument is unpersuasive. Appellant’s argument ignores appellant’s responsibility under the statute to assure that the bond is acceptable. Appellant could properly be found liable for accepting an inadequate bond.

The statute contemplates that a corporate security bond will substitute to some extent for the lender’s security in the property, which is lost by reconveyance of the trust deed. The statute places upon the trustee the responsibility to determine if the bond is acceptable. Subdivision (a) of the statute describes the requirements of the bond. It begins by stating, “The bond shall be acceptable to the trustee and [shall meet certain requirements].” (Italics added.) The bond must be issued by a corporation lawfully authorized to issue surety bonds; the bond must be in a sum equal to twice the amount of the original obligation secured by the deed of trust.

The bond “shall be conditioned for payment of any sum which the . . . beneficiary may recover in an action on the obligation secured by the . . . deed of trust, with costs of suit and reasonable attorneys’ fees. The obligees under the bond shall be . . . the trustee who executes a reconveyance under this section and the beneficiary or beneficiary’s successor in interest.” (Civ. Code, § 2941.7, subd. (a), italics added.)

The statute requires the bond in order to protect not merely the trustee but also the beneficiary, who loses the right to foreclose on the property and is relegated to an action against the trustor, the affiant or the bond. (Civ. Code, § 2941.7, subd. (c).)

The statute does not specify a particular duration for the bond, but we are satisfied that a bond which expires 60 days after the reconveyance is not adequate to protect the beneficiary’s recovery in an action on the obligation secured by the deed of trust. 4 This is not a reasonable length of time for the beneficiary to learn of the reconveyance and pursue remedies against the bond. A 60-day bond may be sufficient to protect the trustee’s interest, but the statute requires the bond to protect the beneficiary’s interest as well. 5

*1017 By reconveying the trust deed despite the inadequacy of the surety bond, appellant did not satisfy the requirements of the statute and therefore is not entitled to the immunity provided by the statute.

The judgment is affirmed.

Turner, P. J., and Boren, J., concurred.

Appendix

Civil Code § 2941.7 [Discharge when mortgagee or beneficiary cannot be located or refuses to execute]. Whenever the obligation secured by a mortgage or deed of trust has been fully satisfied and the present mortgagee or beneficiary of record cannot be located after diligent search, or refuses to execute and deliver a proper certificate of discharge or request for reconveyance, or whenever a specified balance, including principal and interest, remains due and the mortgagor or trustor or the mortgagor’s or trustor’s successor in interest cannot, after diligent search, locate the then mortgagee or beneficiary of record, the lien of any mortgage or deed of trust shall be released when the mortgagor or trustor or the mortgagor’s or trustor’s successor in interest records or causes to be recorded, in the office of the county recorder of the county in which the encumbered property is located, a corporate bond accompanied by a declaration, as specified in subdivision (b), and with respect to a deed of trust, a reconveyance as hereinafter provided.

(a) The bond shall be acceptable to the trustee

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Attorney's Fees of Mohr v. Powers
32 P.3d 647 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
233 Cal. App. 3d 1597, 285 Cal. Rptr. 413, 91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7411, 91 Daily Journal DAR 11263, 1991 Cal. App. LEXIS 1048, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carter-v-continental-land-title-co-calctapp-1991.