Legal Opinion
Bruntz v. Alfaro
California Court of Appeal
Decided July 20, 1989No. C000879PublishedCited by 4 opinions
[Opinion certified for partial publication.*]
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
SPARKS, Acting P. J.
Civil Code section 2924c, subdivision (d) limits the amount of attorney’s fees which may be charged by the beneficiary or mortgagee for the reinstatement of an obligation secured by a deed of trust or mortgage after there has been a default in the payment of interest, principal or other designated obligations. The question on appeal is whether this statutory limitation applies to both judicial and nonjudicial foreclosures or only to a nonjudicial foreclosure. We hold that it applies to both.
Plaintiff Rolland L. Bruntz appeals from a judgment in favor of defendants…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- People v. Lance W.California Supreme Court · 1985
- In Re Waters of Long Valley Creek Stream SystemCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
- People v. WebbCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
- Passanisi v. Merit-McBride Realtors, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1987
- Wutzke v. Bill Reid Painting Service, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1984
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Walker v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2002
- Caruso v. Great Western SavingsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
- Goffney v. FAMILY SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
- Turner v. Real Time Solutions, Inc.District Court, S.D. California · 2023