Legal Opinion
Saucedo v. Mercury Savings & Loan Ass'n
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 22, 1980No. Civ. 21432PublishedCited by 34 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
KAUFMAN, J.
In this appeal we are asked to reconsider our decision in Pas v. Hill (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 521 [151 Cal.Rptr. 98], insofar as it held that a “subject-to” purchaser (or nonassuming grantee) of property encumbered by a deed of trust is not entitled to recover attorney fees under Civil Code section 1717 in a successful suit to enjoin the trust deed holder from enforcing a due-on-sale clause in the promissory note secured by the deed of trust. Upon reexamination and reconsideration of the problem we conclude that on this point Pas v. Hill was incorrectly decided and we overrule…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Reynolds Metals Co. v. AlpersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
- Wellenkamp v. Bank of AmericaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
- Cornelison v. KornbluthCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
- Canal-Randolph Anaheim, Inc. v. WilkoskiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978
- Babcock v. OmanskyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1973
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- Myers Building Industries, Ltd. v. Interface Technology, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1993
- Blickman Turkus v. Mf Downtown SunnyvaleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Real Property Services Corp. v. City of PasadenaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
- Jones v. DrainCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
- Smith v. State Savings & Loan Assn.California Court of Appeal · 1985
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.