Legal Opinion

Florio v. Lau

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 10, 1998No. F028743PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

VARTABEDIAN, J.

This appeal raises a statutory interpretation issue of first impression, involving the interplay between Code of Civil Procedure section 726, which concerns deficiency judgments after judicial foreclosure sales of real property, and California Uniform Commercial Code section 9501, subdivision (4), the so-called “mixed collateral statute.” We must resolve the following question: When a debtor secures a single obligation with “mixed collateral” (that is, with a combination of real and personal property) and when the secured creditor would otherwise be entitled to a…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. D'AMICO v. Board of Medical ExaminersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
  2. Lucido v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
  3. California Teachers Ass'n v. San Diego Community College DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1981
  4. Roseleaf Corp. v. ChierighinoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
  5. Berkeley Center for Independent Living v. CoyleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Town of Atherton v. California High-Speed Rail AuthorityCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
  2. Tunstall v. WellsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
  3. As You Sow v. Conbraco IndustriesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
  4. Conway v. County of TuolumneCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
  5. Oxford Street Properties, LLC v. Rehabilitation Associates, LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012

12 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