## Facts

- Hall and his wife executed a deed of trust on real property that authorized trustee’s instruments to recite facts about the trust’s execution and made such recitals “conclusive proof” of the recited facts.
- After default, the trustee conducted a nonjudicial foreclosure sale under the power of sale and delivered a trustee’s deed to the purchaser.
- The trustee’s deed recited compliance with required foreclosure steps, including notice by posting and publication and any necessary substitution of trustee.
- Sorensen claimed legal title through the trust deed, trustee’s deed, and a subsequent deed from the foreclosure purchaser.
- Hall and another claimant, Hambly (claiming through Hall), remained in possession and challenged the foreclosure’s validity.
- Defendants offered evidence only to contradict the trustee’s deed recitals; they pleaded no equitable defenses seeking to set aside the sale.

## Issues

1. In an ejectment action involving only legal title, whether a trust deed clause making trustee’s deed recitals “conclusive proof” renders those recitals conclusive evidence of compliance with foreclosure prerequisites.
2. Whether defendants may introduce evidence contradicting such recitals when no equitable defenses are pleaded.
3. Where both parties claim from a common source (Hall), whether plaintiff need only show superior title derived from that source as against Hambly.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of California affirmed judgment for Sorensen.
- The trustee’s deed recitals were conclusive in this legal-title action because the trust deed expressly made them conclusive proof of the recited facts.
- The trial court properly excluded defendants’ evidence offered to contradict the trustee’s deed recitals.
- As to Hambly, because both sides claimed through Hall, Sorensen sufficiently proved superior title by proving title derived from Hall.

## Legal Principles

- Where a deed of trust provides that recitals in a trustee’s deed “shall be conclusive proof” of compliance with conditions of sale, those recitals are conclusive in an action involving only legal title (e.g., ejectment).
- In such a legal-title action, the purchaser need not present independent evidence of foreclosure compliance when the trustee’s deed contains conclusive recitals authorized by the trust deed.
- Absent pleaded equitable grounds (e.g., an equitable action or defense aimed at setting aside the sale), a trustor may not collaterally attack the foreclosure by contradicting conclusive trustee’s deed recitals.
- When both parties claim title through a common source, the plaintiff may prevail by proving a better title derived from that common source.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the purchaser’s successor’s title in ejectment, holding that trustee’s deed recitals mandated by a conclusive-recitals clause conclusively established foreclosure compliance and barred defendants, who asserted no equitable claims, from introducing contrary evidence.


Sorensen v. Hall, 219 Cal. 680 (Cal. 1934)