## Facts

- Chad Development Corporation (Chad) executed a promissory note secured by a deed of trust on Riverside County real property.
- Although there was one note and one deed of trust, the deed of trust named two beneficiaries: Jerry Perkins and R. P. Wilson.
- Chad initially made its monthly installment payments in full, paying either Perkins or Wilson.
- Chad later began paying only part of the monthly amount to Wilson and stopped paying Perkins altogether.
- After Wilson died, Chad continued making the partial payments to Wilson’s widow, Mina Wilson, in her role as coexecutor, until Chad eventually stopped making payments entirely.
- Chad also experienced other financial problems tied to the property, including default under another deed of trust and delinquent property taxes.
- Perkins asked Mina to join in recording a notice of default and election to sell under their deed of trust; Mina refused.
- Perkins alone executed, served, and recorded a notice of default and election to sell.
- At the trustee’s sale, Perkins purchased the property through an agent.
- Perkins (through his agent) filed an action to quiet title after the trustee’s sale.
- Roger Janetzky intervened, claiming he retained an interest in the property based on alleged oral arrangements connected to Chad’s ownership, even though there was no deed, contract, or other writing transferring an interest to him.
- The trial court found Janetzky had no interest in the property, upheld the foreclosure sale, and quieted title in Perkins.
- Janetzky appealed.

## Issues

1. Did the trial court err in determining that intervenor Janetzky had no interest in the property sufficient to defeat Perkins’s quiet-title claim?
2. Was the nonjudicial foreclosure sale invalid because the notice of default and election to sell was executed and recorded by only one of the deed of trust’s two beneficiaries?

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment quieting title in Perkins.
- The court upheld the trial court’s finding that Janetzky had no enforceable interest in the property.
- The court held the foreclosure was not rendered invalid merely because only one cobeneficiary recorded the notice of default and election to sell; a beneficiary may act to protect the shared security interest upon default.
- Because the notice of default was valid, the trustee’s sale based on that notice was valid, and Perkins’s title acquired at the sale could be quieted against Janetzky’s claim.

## Legal Principles

- Where a deed of trust secures a single obligation but names more than one beneficiary, any beneficiary may, upon default, execute and record a notice of default and election to sell to protect the common security.
- Joint beneficiaries under a deed of trust share a common interest in the secured obligation, supporting the authority of any one of them to initiate the foreclosure process when necessary to protect that shared interest.
- A challenger to title who claims an interest in real property must prove a legally recognizable interest; alleged oral understandings unsupported by a deed, contract, or other writing may be insufficient to establish an interest that defeats a quiet-title judgment.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a quiet-title judgment for Perkins after a trustee’s sale, holding that one beneficiary under a deed of trust with multiple beneficiaries may unilaterally record a notice of default and election to sell upon default, and concluding the intervenor failed to prove any enforceable interest in the property that would defeat Perkins’s title.


Perkins v. Chad Development Corp., 95 Cal. App. 3d 645 (1979)