Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

12 Cal. App. 2d 183

Everts v. McFate

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 28, 1936

California Court of Appeal · decided 1936-02-28

Relies on 118 Cal. App. 525 - Ley v. Babcock

Decided 1936-02-28

EDMONDS, J., pro tem.

¶1This 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.

¶2The note and deed of trust were executed in 1929. The note matured three years thereafter. The sale was ma,de October 17, 1933.

¶3The point presented by the respondents by their de-

¶4murrer and upon appeal is the application of section. 2924½, Civil Code, enacted in 1933, to the note executed by them. However, in the case of Brown v. Ferdon, 5 Cal. (2d) 226 [54 Pac. (2d) 712], it was held that the provisions of that section cannot apply retroactively to instruments executed before its effective date.

¶5Respondents 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 Pac. (2d) 620].)

¶6The judgment is reversed.

¶7Houser, P. J., and York, J., concurred.

/12/calapp2d/183 · .json · Public domain