BROWN v. WALDO (1936)

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California.

BROWN v. WALDO.

Civ. 9783.

Decided: February 28, 1936

Louis Ferrari, of San Francisco, and Edmund Nelson, Howard Waterman, Freston & Files, and Ralph E. Lewis, all of Los Angeles, for appellant. Donald M. Keith, of Los Angeles, for respondent.

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 defendant interposed a general demurrer upon the ground that the complaint failed to state a cause of action because of the provisions of section 2924 1/2, Civil Code, enacted in 1933 (St.1933, p. 1674). The demurrer was sustained without leave to amend, and the appeal is from the judgment subsequently entered.

The note and deed of trust were executed October 24, 1929. The note became due three years thereafter.

In the case of Brown v. Ferdon (Cal.Sup.) 54 P.(2d) 712, it was held that the Code section mentioned cannot apply retroactively to instruments executed before its effective date. The judgment is therefore reversed.

EDMONDS, Justice pro tem.

We concur: HOUSER, P. J.; YORK, J.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network