Shamblin

Shamblin v. Berge

Good Law
166 Cal. App. 3d 118·1985 Cal. App. LEXIS 1818·212 Cal. Rptr. 313
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 26, 1985E000366California1,816 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rickles, J.

While acting as real estate agents for plaintiffs William and Grace Shamblin, defendants Don and Betty Berge engaged in the conduct which gave rise to this controversy. Both parties appeal from portions of the judgment rendered below raising the contentions herein discussed.

Facts

In June of 1973, plaintiffs obtained a loan from the Kissell Company (hereinafter Kissell) for the purpose of constructing a townhouse devel opment in the City of Riverside. The loan matured in December of 1974 and Kissell demanded full payment. When plaintiffs were unable to comply, Kissell filed a judicial foreclosure action in February of 1975 and concurrently obtained an ex parte order appointing a receiver to take possession of the development. The receiver’s appointment was confirmed in July of 1975, and plaintiffs were found in contempt of court for willfully refusing to deliver possession. In September of 1975, before the foreclosure sale, plaintiffs accepted a settlement offer whereby Kissell was awarded title to 32 completed units and plaintiffs were awarded title to 63 manufactured lots. This acceptance was formalized in October of 1975 and the foreclosure action dismissed. One…

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.