Austin v. Hannon

California Court of Appeal

Austin v. Hannon

59 P.2d 155, 15 Cal. App. 2d 96, 1936 Cal. App. LEXIS 16

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 29, 1936

DocketCiv. 10007

StatusPublished

This text of 59 P.2d 155 (Austin v. Hannon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Austin v. Hannon, 59 P.2d 155, 15 Cal. App. 2d 96, 1936 Cal. App. LEXIS 16 (Cal. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

DESMOND, J., pro tem.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of dismissal entered upon the court’s sustaining without leave to amend a general demurrer to his complaint.

The sole question involved in this appeal is whether section 2924% of the Civil Code, enacted in 1933, which section precludes the entry of a deficiency judgment unless one year, as distinguished from the former period of three months, has elapsed between the recordation of the notice of breach and election to sell and the date of sale under a deed of trust, may be applied to deeds of trust executed prior to the effective date of the section. The trial court, by sustaining a demurrer to the complaint without leave to amend, concluded that the section should- be given a retroactive application. This is contrary to the decision in Brown v. Ferdon, 5 Cal. (2d) 226 [54 Pac. (2d) 712], in which it was held that the section could not be retroactively applied without doing violence to the “contract clause” of the Constitution.

Upon the authority of the decision in the cited ease, the judgment herein is reversed.

York, Acting P. J., and Doran, J., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DESMOND, J., pro tem.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of dismissal entered upon the court’s sustaining without leave to amend a general demurrer to his complaint.

The sole question involved in this appeal is whether section 2924% of the Civil Code, enacted in 1933, which section precludes the entry of a deficiency judgment unless one year, as distinguished from the former period of three months, has elapsed between the recordation of the notice of breach and election to sell and the date of sale under a deed of trust, may be applied to deeds of trust executed prior to the effective date of the section. The trial court, by sustaining a demurrer to the complaint without leave to amend, concluded that the section should- be given a retroactive application. This is contrary to the decision in Brown v. Ferdon, 5 Cal. (2d) 226 [54 Pac. (2d) 712], in which it was held that the section could not be retroactively applied without doing violence to the “contract clause” of the Constitution.

Upon the authority of the decision in the cited ease, the judgment herein is reversed.

York, Acting P. J., and Doran, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 P.2d 155, 15 Cal. App. 2d 96, 1936 Cal. App. LEXIS 16, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/austin-v-hannon-calctapp-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack