Disanto

Disanto v. Surf City Investors CA3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 28, 2025C098207California6,687 words

Opinion

Opinion

Krause, J.

BACKGROUND

Factual Background On September 10, 2007, plaintiffs, who were married to each other, both executed a promissory note in favor of Mattos in the amount of $73,000, secured by a deed of trust on a piece of real property owned at the time by DaSalla alone as separate property. The

2 note is entitled, “NOTE SECURED BY DEED OF TRUST,” and specified, “[t]his note is secured by the DEED OF TRUST to Brett Mattos . . . .” On the same day, DaSalla individually executed a deed of trust securing the promissory note, in which she granted, transferred, and assigned to Mattos as trustee an interest in the subject real property in Sacramento. Although there was a space provided for his signature, DiSanto did not sign the deed of trust. The deed of trust was not recorded until November 6, 2007. Separately, DaSalla executed a grant deed on October 11, 2007, recorded on October 16, 2007, granting title in the subject real property from herself individually to herself and DiSanto, “husband and wife, as joint tenants.” Thus, this conveyance was made after DaSalla executed the deed of trust in favor of Mattos, but before Mattos recorded the deed of trust. DaSalla made payments on the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.