## Facts

- Sears owned real property and gave Redfield a first mortgage, then gave Frates a second mortgage that was recorded before Redfield filed foreclosure.
- Redfield foreclosed the first mortgage but did not join Frates as a party.
- Redfield obtained a foreclosure judgment and purchased the property at the foreclosure sale.
- By the time Frates later sued to foreclose her second mortgage, the statute of limitations had run on any new action by Redfield on the original first-mortgage debt.
- Frates sought to foreclose as though the first mortgage and foreclosure could be disregarded because limitations had run.
- The trial court admitted the earlier foreclosure judgment and proceedings to show Redfield’s title and treated Redfield’s interest as superior.

## Issues

1. Whether a junior mortgagee omitted from a senior mortgage foreclosure may foreclose her lien as if the senior mortgage and foreclosure never existed after limitations has run on the senior debt.
2. Whether a completed senior foreclosure sale remains effective to vest title in the purchaser despite nonjoinder of the junior mortgagee and later expiration of limitations on the senior obligation.
3. Whether the prior foreclosure judgment and proceedings were admissible to prove the purchaser’s title and the mortgagor’s loss of interest.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court affirmed judgment for Sears and Redfield.
- The prior foreclosure and sale validly transferred Sears’s interest to Redfield, even though Frates was not joined.
- The statute of limitations on Redfield’s debt did not invalidate title already acquired through the foreclosure sale.
- The earlier judgment roll and proceedings were properly admitted to establish Redfield’s title.

## Legal Principles

- Omission of a junior encumbrancer from a senior foreclosure does not void the foreclosure as to parties before the court; the sale passes the mortgagor’s interest to the purchaser.
- A junior lien omitted from the senior foreclosure is not adjudicated or extinguished by that decree, but it persists only against whatever interest remains subject to the purchaser’s superior title (including any redemption-related interest), not against an unencumbered title.
- Expiration of the limitations period on the senior note or mortgage bars new enforcement actions on that debt but does not retroactively undo a completed foreclosure or divest the purchaser’s title.
- Court records of the prior foreclosure are competent evidence to show the transfer of title and the mortgagor’s loss of ownership.

## Conclusion

A junior mortgagee omitted from a senior foreclosure cannot use the statute of limitations on the senior debt to disregard the senior foreclosure purchaser’s title; the prior foreclosure sale remains effective to vest title, and the junior lien may be enforced only subject to that outstanding superior interest.


Frates v. Sears, 144 Cal. 246 (1904)