Opinion ID: 2678190
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the trustee or mortgagee caused an illegal,

Text: fraudulent, or willfully oppressive sale of real property pursuant to a power of sale in a mortgage or deed of trust; (2) the party IN RE: MERS 27 attacking the sale (usually but not always the trustor or mortgagor) was prejudiced or harmed; and (3) in cases where the trustor or mortgagor challenges the sale, the trustor or mortgagor tendered the amount of the secured indebtedness or was excused from tendering. Lona v. Citibank, N.A., 134 Cal. Rptr. 3d 622, 633 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (collecting cases) (emphasis added). Excuses from California’s tender requirement are the following: (1) the underlying debt is void, (2) the foreclosure sale or trustee’s deed is void on its face, (3) a counterclaim offsets the amount due, (4) specific circumstances make it inequitable to enforce the debt against the party challenging the sale, or (5) the foreclosure sale has not yet occurred. Chavez v. Indymac Mortg. Servs., 162 Cal. Rptr. 3d 382, 390 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013). Nevada law requires that a trustor or mortgagor show a lack of default in order to proceed with a wrongful foreclosure claim. The Nevada Supreme Court stated in Collins v. Union Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n, 662 P.2d 610 (Nev. 1983): An action for the tort of wrongful foreclosure will lie if the trustor or mortgagor can establish that at the time the power of sale was exercised or the foreclosure occurred, no breach of condition or failure of performance existed on the mortgagor’s or trustor’s part 28 IN RE: MERS which would have authorized the foreclosure or exercise of the power of sale. Therefore, the material issue of fact in a wrongful foreclosure claim is whether the trustor was in default when the power of sale was exercised. Id. at 304 (citations omitted). Because none of the appellants has shown a lack of default, tender, or an excuse from the tender requirement, appellants’ wrongful foreclosure claims cannot succeed. We therefore affirm the MDL Court’s dismissal of Count II.