Boyle v. Sweeney
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
CHANNELL, J.
After a court trial, the trial court determined that respondent William Boyle was entitled to recover the principal due on the promissory note of appellants Edwin P. Sweeney and Ronald Brown. Sweeney and Brown appeal, contending that codified antideficiency protection (see Code Civ. Proc., § 580b) 1 precludes this result. We affirm the judgment.
I. Facts
In 1981, Mario and Pearl Evola 2 and appellant Edwin P. Sweeney executed a promissory note for $50,000 to Gertrude Boyle. The note was secured by a deed of trust on real property on Broderick Street in San Francisco and Boyle…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Spangler v. MemelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
- Kistler v. VasiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
- Ziegler v. BarnesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1988
- Long v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
3Cited by6 opinions
- DeBerard Properties, Ltd. v. LimCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
- Thompson v. AllertCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
- Crookall v. Davis, Punelli, Keathley & WillardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
- Union Bank v. AndersonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
- Jack Erickson & Associates v. HesselgesserCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.