EVERTS v. McFATE (1936)

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

EVERTS v. McFATE et al.

Civ. 9782.

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. Henry G. Bodkin, of Los Angeles, for respondents.

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 made October 17, 1933.

The point presented by the respondents by their demurrer and upon appeal is the application of section 2924 1/2, Civil Code, enacted in 1933 (St. 1933, p. 1674), to the note executed by them. However, in the case of Brown v. Ferdon (Cal.Sup.) 54 P.(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 P.(2d) 620.

The judgment is 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Out of date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