Herlong-Sierra Homes, Inc., a Corporation v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Herlong-Sierra Homes, Inc., a Corporation v. United States

358 F.2d 300, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6769

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 24, 1966

Docket19764

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 358 F.2d 300 (Herlong-Sierra Homes, Inc., a Corporation v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Herlong-Sierra Homes, Inc., a Corporation v. United States, 358 F.2d 300, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6769 (9th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM;

This is an appeal from a judgment in an action by the United States to foreclose a deed of trust and chattel mortgage executed by appellant to secure a loan insured by the Federal Housing Administration under the authority of Title VIII of the National Housing Act, 12 U.S.C.A. § 1748b, in connection with the construction of a rental housing project for military and civilian personnel at the Sierra Ordnance Depot in Lassen County, California. An opinion of this court in related litigation is reported at Builders Corporation of America v. United States, 9 Cir., 320 F.2d 425.

Appellant contends (1) that appellee is precluded from recovery because appel-lee’s wrongful conduct prevented appellant from making the payments due on the note, and (2) that a deficiency judgment was barred by section 580b of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Both contentions are sufficiently answered by the district court in its memorandum opinion of June 8, 1964. As to the second contention, see also United States v. Shimer, 367 U.S. 374, 81 S.Ct. 1554, 6 L.Ed.2d 908 (1961); United States v. Rossi, 342 F.2d 505 (9th Cir. 1965).

Appellant also argues that the district court should have made provision in the judgment against acceptance of an excessively low bid at foreclosure sale. It does not appear from the record before us that this issue was raised in the district court. In any event, we agree with appellee that “all that is before the Court now is the Judgment of Foreclosure and Order of Sale, not the sale itself.” Nothing that the district court or this court has held would preclude the appellee from seeking relief in the district court on a showing that the high bid at the foreclosure sale was unreasonably low. Cf. Magnolia Springs Apartments, Inc. v. United States, 323 F.2d 726 (5th Cir. 1963).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM;

This is an appeal from a judgment in an action by the United States to foreclose a deed of trust and chattel mortgage executed by appellant to secure a loan insured by the Federal Housing Administration under the authority of Title VIII of the National Housing Act, 12 U.S.C.A. § 1748b, in connection with the construction of a rental housing project for military and civilian personnel at the Sierra Ordnance Depot in Lassen County, California. An opinion of this court in related litigation is reported at Builders Corporation of America v. United States, 9 Cir., 320 F.2d 425.

Appellant contends (1) that appellee is precluded from recovery because appel-lee’s wrongful conduct prevented appellant from making the payments due on the note, and (2) that a deficiency judgment was barred by section 580b of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Both contentions are sufficiently answered by the district court in its memorandum opinion of June 8, 1964. As to the second contention, see also United States v. Shimer, 367 U.S. 374, 81 S.Ct. 1554, 6 L.Ed.2d 908 (1961); United States v. Rossi, 342 F.2d 505 (9th Cir. 1965).

Appellant also argues that the district court should have made provision in the judgment against acceptance of an excessively low bid at foreclosure sale. It does not appear from the record before us that this issue was raised in the district court. In any event, we agree with appellee that “all that is before the Court now is the Judgment of Foreclosure and Order of Sale, not the sale itself.” Nothing that the district court or this court has held would preclude the appellee from seeking relief in the district court on a showing that the high bid at the foreclosure sale was unreasonably low. Cf. Magnolia Springs Apartments, Inc. v. United States, 323 F.2d 726 (5th Cir. 1963).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

358 F.2d 300, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6769, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herlong-sierra-homes-inc-a-corporation-v-united-states-ca9-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack