Smith v. Krueger
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
MORRIS, P. J.
Elmer and Lucile Smith have appealed from an order denying them the attorney’s fees they incurred from litigation resulting from defendants’ attempt to enforce the acceleration clause in a deed of trust on their home. The sole issue is whether the adverse order constituted an abuse of discretion. We find it did and we reverse.
Facts
Neither party disputes the following pertinent facts. Plaintiffs purchased their home from defendants in the fall of 1981. To cover the cost of this purchase, plaintiffs executed a promissory note for $31,500, secured by a deed of trust.
The deed…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Reynolds Metals Co. v. AlpersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
- Wellenkamp v. Bank of AmericaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
- Wells v. Marina City Properties, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1981
- Christensen v. Dewor DevelopmentsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1983
- Associated Convalescent Enterprises v. Carl Marks & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1973
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Chia-Lee Hsu v. AbbaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
- McLarand, Vasquez & Partners, Inc. v. Downey Savings & Loan Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
- Braun v. City of TaftCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
- Milman v. ShukhatCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
- Deane Gardenhome Assn. v. DenktasCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.