Legal Opinion

Stephans v. Herman

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 18, 1964No. Civ. 21302PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDraper, P. J.

Plaintiffs loaned defendants Herman $9,000, and took back a promissory note, payable 90 days thereafter, for $11,500. The note was secured by four lots conveyed by deed of trust to defendant title company, as trustee. Two lots were sold under a prior deed of trust, and are not here in issue. The real estate broker who handled the transaction was in prison at time of trial. She and Mrs. Herman prepared a request for partial reconveyance. Bearing the forged signatures of plaintiffs, this request and a forged note were presented to the title company, which reconveyed lots 8 and 9 to the Hermans…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Roseleaf Corp. v. ChierighinoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
  2. People Ex Rel. Department of Public Works v. McCulloughCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
  3. Jones v. MortimerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
  4. Williams v. ReedCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
  5. Redevelopment Agency v. ModellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Munger v. MooreCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
  2. Wycalis v. Guardian Title of UtahCourt of Appeals of Utah · 1989
  3. Ruth v. Lytton Savings & Loan Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
  4. Pease v. TaylorNevada Supreme Court · 1972
  5. Winnett v. RobertsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986

8 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