Legal Opinion

Palm v. Schilling

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 29, 1988No. G003590PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

CROSBY, J.—

The antideficiency provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 580b may not be contractually waived as a condition of the encumbrance of real property with a purchase money mortgage or deed of trust or the renegotiation of an obligation, so long as it continues to be secured with the original real estate. The superior court erred in upholding a waiver of the latter variety here. We reverse accordingly.

I

This litigation to collect a deficiency judgment on a secured promissory note had its genesis in John and Caroline Schilling’s October 1980 purchase of James and Frances…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Estate of McDillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
  2. Roseleaf Corp. v. ChierighinoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
  3. Cornelison v. KornbluthCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
  4. Freedland v. GrecoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
  5. Brown v. JensenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Gorman v. Tassajara Development Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2009
  2. Torrey Pines Bank v. HoffmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
  3. DeBerard Properties, Ltd. v. LimCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
  4. Brunsoman v. ScarlettNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1991
  5. LaSalle Bank National Ass'n v. SleutelCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2002

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API