Hammond v. Stanley

California Supreme Court

Hammond v. Stanley

5 Cal. 2d 783

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 28, 1936

DocketL. A. No. 15680

StatusPublished

This text of 5 Cal. 2d 783 (Hammond v. Stanley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hammond v. Stanley, 5 Cal. 2d 783 (Cal. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

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 our decision in Brown v. Ferdon, L. A. No. 14775 (ante, p. 226 [54 Pac. (2d) 712]), this day filed, wherein we held that the section could not be retroactively applied without doing violence to the “contract clause” of the Constitution.

For the reasons advanced in Brown v. Ferdon, supra, and upon the authority thereof, the judgment herein is reversed.

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

THE COURT.

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 our decision in Brown v. Ferdon, L. A. No. 14775 (ante, p. 226 [54 Pac. (2d) 712]), this day filed, wherein we held that the section could not be retroactively applied without doing violence to the “contract clause” of the Constitution.

For the reasons advanced in Brown v. Ferdon, supra, and upon the authority thereof, the judgment herein is reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Cal. 2d 783, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hammond-v-stanley-cal-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack