Legal Opinion

BMP Property Development v. Melvin

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 15, 1988No. D005675PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

TODD, J.

BMP Properties (BMP) claims the trial court erred in concluding loans it made as part of a real estate trade were purchase money obligations, thus preventing BMP from seeking a deficiency judgment under Code of Civil Procedure 1 section 580b. BMP asserts the court, in so concluding, improperly relied upon two facts. First, because some of the funds advanced were not used to satisfy the purchase price, BMP argues the court cannot classify the obligations as purchase money. Second, because the land trade and loan agreement were handled by different escrows, BMP argues the court…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Bargioni v. HillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
  2. Nevin v. SalkCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
  3. Prunty v. Bank of AmericaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974
  4. Stark v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
  5. Shepherd v. RobinsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1981

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Pellegrini v. WeissCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
  2. Conley v. MatthesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997
  3. Dell Merk, Inc. v. FranziaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
  4. Pilcher v. WheelerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
  5. Ziegler v. BarnesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1988

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API