Everts v. McFate

California Court of Appeal

Everts v. McFate

55 P.2d 223, 12 Cal. App. 2d 183, 1936 Cal. App. LEXIS 1003

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedFebruary 28, 1936

DocketCiv. No. 9782

StatusPublished

This text of 55 P.2d 223 (Everts v. McFate) 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

Everts v. McFate, 55 P.2d 223, 12 Cal. App. 2d 183, 1936 Cal. App. LEXIS 1003 (Cal. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

EDMONDS, J., pro tem.

This action was brought to recover the deficiency remaining unpaid upon a note originally secured by a deed of trust after sale of the property. The trial court sustained a general demurrer without leave to amend. The appeal is from the judgment subsequently entered.

The note and deed of trust were executed in 1929. The note matured three years thereafter. The sale was ma,de October 17, 1933.

The point presented by the respondents by their de-

murrer and upon appeal is the application of section. 2924½, Civil Code, enacted in 1933, to the note executed by them. However, in the case of Brown v. Ferdon, 5 Cal. (2d) 226 [54 Pac. (2d) 712], it was held that the provisions of that section cannot apply retroactively to instruments executed before its effective date.

Respondents also urge that the complaint does not sufficiently allege that the requirements of section 2924, Civil Code, and section 692 Code of Civil Procedure, were complied with. We find the pleading sufficient in this regard. (Ley v. Babcock, 118 Cal. App. 525 [5 Pac. (2d) 620].)

The judgment is reversed.

Houser, P. J., and York, J., concurred.

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