Smith v. Davis

California Court of Appeal

Smith v. Davis

52 P.2d 515, 10 Cal. App. 2d 487, 1935 Cal. App. LEXIS 1442

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedDecember 5, 1935

DocketCiv. 10015

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 52 P.2d 515 (Smith v. Davis) 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

Smith v. Davis, 52 P.2d 515, 10 Cal. App. 2d 487, 1935 Cal. App. LEXIS 1442 (Cal. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

SHINN, J., pro tem.

An appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff for the unpaid balance of a promissory note after sale of real property under a trust deed.

The sole question in this case is w'hether section 580a of the Code of Civil Procedure (Stats. 1933, chap. 642), by which the right to a deficiency judgment after sale of real *488 property under a trust deed is limited to the excess of the entire amount of the indebtedness, due at the time of sale, over the fair market value of the property at the time of sale, applies to a trust deed executed prior to the effective date of the act. The sale here involved took place before the act went into effect.

The application of the section contended for by defendants has been denied in the recent cases of Bennett v. Superior Court, 5 Cal. App. (2d) 13 [42 Pac. (2d) 80] , California Trust Co. v. Smead Investment Co., 6 Cal. App. (2d) 432 [44 Pac. (2d) 624], Title Insurance & Trust Co. v. Kinkel, 7 Cal. App. (2d) 623 [46 Pac. (2d) 778] , and Wilson v. Superior Court, 8 Cal. App. (2d) 14 [47 Pac. (2d) 331],

The appeal from the judgments is affirmed. The attempted appeals from orders overruling the demurrers of defendants Baker and Davis to the complaint are dismissed.

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

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

SHINN, J., pro tem.

An appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff for the unpaid balance of a promissory note after sale of real property under a trust deed.

The sole question in this case is w'hether section 580a of the Code of Civil Procedure (Stats. 1933, chap. 642), by which the right to a deficiency judgment after sale of real *488 property under a trust deed is limited to the excess of the entire amount of the indebtedness, due at the time of sale, over the fair market value of the property at the time of sale, applies to a trust deed executed prior to the effective date of the act. The sale here involved took place before the act went into effect.

The application of the section contended for by defendants has been denied in the recent cases of Bennett v. Superior Court, 5 Cal. App. (2d) 13 [42 Pac. (2d) 80] , California Trust Co. v. Smead Investment Co., 6 Cal. App. (2d) 432 [44 Pac. (2d) 624], Title Insurance & Trust Co. v. Kinkel, 7 Cal. App. (2d) 623 [46 Pac. (2d) 778] , and Wilson v. Superior Court, 8 Cal. App. (2d) 14 [47 Pac. (2d) 331],

The appeal from the judgments is affirmed. The attempted appeals from orders overruling the demurrers of defendants Baker and Davis to the complaint are dismissed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 P.2d 515, 10 Cal. App. 2d 487, 1935 Cal. App. LEXIS 1442, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-davis-calctapp-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack