Talbott v. Hustwit
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
ARONSON, J.
Defendants William and Janyce Hustwit challenge a judgment entered against them on a guaranty agreement after the lender foreclosed on real property securing a loan made to the Hustwits’ trust. The Hustwits contend the trial court erred in refusing to apply Code of Civil Procedure section 580a,1 which requires an appraisal of the real property security before the court may issue a deficiency judgment. The Hustwits assert that the general policy against excess recovery by creditors following the foreclosure of real property requires applying section 580a to guarantors as well…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Cornelison v. KornbluthCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
- Bank of Hemet v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981
- Torrey Pines Bank v. HoffmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
- Riddle v. LushingCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
- Mariners Savings & Loan Ass'n v. NeilCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1971
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
- Cal. Bank & Trust v. Lawlor CA4/3California Court of Appeal · 2013
- CADC/RADC Venture 2011-1 LLC v. BradleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
- In re BrockUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Colorado · 2013
- CA Bank & Trust v. LawlorCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.