Legal Opinion
Monterossa v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 12, 2015No. C077683PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BUTZ, Acting P. J. —
In 2012, new legislation imposed specific limitations regarding the nonjudicial foreclosure of owner-occupied residential real property. Among other things, the statutory scheme provides that a court may award reasonable attorney fees and costs to the “prevailing borrower,” indicating: “A borrower shall be deemed to have prevailed for purposes of this subdivision if the borrower obtained injunctive relief or was awarded damages pursuant to this section.” (Civ. Code, § 2924.12, subd. (i).) In this case, the respondent superior court concluded petitioners were not…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Continental Baking Co. v. KatzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
- Hunt v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
- Lueras v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LPCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
- Nolan v. City of AnaheimCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
- Carver v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2002
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Artus v. Gramercy Towers Condo. Ass'n, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- Hardie v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
- Moustafa v. Bd. of Registered Nursing, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- Tuan Anh Le v. Bank of New York MellonDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2015
- Artus v. Gramercy Towers Condominium Ass'n.California Court of Appeal · 2018
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.