I think I’ve read every post here mentioning a “bona fide purchaser for value” (BPV) and every part of CC 2924 referencing a BPV, such as:
“2924.© A recital in the deed executed pursuant to the power of sale of compliance with all requirements of law regarding the mailing of copies of notices or the publication of a copy of the notice of default or the personal delivery of the copy of the notice of default or the posting of copies of the notice of sale or the publication of a copy thereof shall constitute prima facie evidence of compliance with these requirements and conclusive evidence thereof in favor of bona fide purchasers and encumbrancers for value and without notice.”
The above language seems to state that even if a trustee utterly failed to comply with one or more “requirements of law” above, a BPV would remain unaffected as long as the TDUS states that the trustee complied. Presumably the borrowers might still have claims in such a case against the trustee (but the BPV purchase would remain intact)?
But does any special protection for BPV’s apply to claims of error in the *content* of the NOD or other documents (such as a name typo, if it would not be viewed as legally irrelevant anyway)?
Although various posts state that BPV’s are substantially protected against claims of error, they don’t seem to describe the actual scope of that protection, even in general terms (e.g., what classes of errors are covered). Is the “favored” treatment of a BPV (relative to a beneficiary) limited to the explicit references to that concept in CC 2924, or is there a more general principle (which would be reflected in CA case law) that can apply in other scenarios? Many comments imply a BPV can still lose a property based on trustee error (although the purchase price would be returned). Can anyone explain (even briefly in terms of a general principle) what kinds of error can cause a BPV purchase to be overturned or any BPV liability?