Legal Opinion

Cessna Finance Corp. v. Pivo

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 14, 1976No. Civ. 15310PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

McDANIEL, J.

Introduction

The action in the trial court was for recovery of a deficiency judgment by the seller’s assignee against the buyers of three small aircraft after repossession and sale. Judgment was awarded the defaulting buyers on the theory that the transaction came under the Unruh Act which precludes deficiency judgments where the goods have been purchased for personal, family or household purposes. The- material facts are not disputed. In our view, there was misapplication of the law to the facts as found in that the trial court concluded that the aircraft had been purchased…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Franklin Investment Co. v. HomburgDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1969
  2. American City Bank v. ZetlenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1969
  3. Commercial Credit Equipment Corp. v. CarterWashington Supreme Court · 1973
  4. James Talcott, Inc. v. GeeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Balser v. Cessna Aircraft Co.District Court, N.D. Georgia · 1981
  2. Martin v. Wells Fargo BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
  3. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Pettit (In Re Pettit)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas · 1981

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

Powered by the Exa API