Borrower filed a quiet title action against the original beneficiary of her deed of trust, but didn’t serve that beneficiary properly and did not nam or serve either later assignee of her deed of trust though both assignments had been recorded. After obtaining judgment and before the original beneficiary obtained an order vacating the quiet title judgment, Tsasu lent the borrower money taking what it thought was a first deed of trust on the newly cleared title. CCP 764.060 provides that later invalidation of a quiet title judgment is ineffective as against “a purchaser or encumbrancer for value . . . without knowledge of any defects or irregularities in [the earlier quiet title] judgment or the proceedings.” This decision holds that “knowledge” for purposes of this statute means both actual and constructive knowledge. Here, Tsasu had constructive knowledge of the quiet title judgment’s invalidity because the judgment showed that only the original beneficiary was a party to the action while the public record showed two pre-judgment assignments of the deed of trust. Also, since Tsasu relied on its title company’s preliminary report in deciding whether to lend to borrower, the title company’s knowledge or constructive knowledge of these facts is imputed to Tsasu.