Legal Opinion
Garver v. Brace
California Court of Appeal
Decided July 25, 1996No. B092376PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
YEGAN, J.
In June 1989, appellants James and Georgann Garver (buyers) purchased real property and signed a promissory note containing a prepayment fee clause which is payable to respondents William and Marylou Brace (sellers). In November 1993, the buyers prepaid the note, incurring a fee of over $180,000. They seek restitution of the prepayment fee on the grounds, among others, that it violates Civil Code section 2954.9, subdivision (b).
The trial court sustained the sellers’ demurrer without leave to amend, finding the buyers’ claims were time-barred because the applicable statutes of…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Budd v. NixenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- Davies v. KrasnaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
- Industrial Welfare Commission v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980
- Ford Dealers Assn. v. Department of Motor VehiclesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
- Adams v. PaulCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Regents of University of California v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
- California Amplifier, Inc. v. RLI Ins. Co.California Court of Appeal · 2001
- Marin Healthcare District v. Sutter HealthCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
- Ginsberg v. GamsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
- Hardwick v. WilcoxCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2017
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.