Wright

Wright v. Johnston

Good Law
1988 Cal. App. LEXIS 1125·206 Cal. App. 3d 333·253 Cal. Rptr. 418
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 30, 1988D004636California2,140 words

Opinion

Opinion

Work, J.

The trial court in this case granted plaintiff Jack Wright a decree of judicial foreclosure, but denied him a personal judgment for any deficiency against the defendants Calvin Johnston, Petroculture Development Co., and Hutton Associates, Inc. Wright appeals from the judgment challenging the court’s application of the antideficiency provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 580b. We conclude the court ruled incorrectly. We hold this case falls within the exception of section 580b as defined in Spangler v. Memel (1972) 7 Cal.3d 603 [ 102 Cal.Rptr. 807 , 498 P.2d 1055 ] and accordingly we reverse the judgment.

Factual and Procedural Background

Wright sold 1,228 acres of Imperial County farmland to Johnston for $1.5 million in February 1981. Johnston paid $300,000 cash, assumed three secured promissory notes totalling $693,555 and delivered a new secured note for $506,444. The three secured notes consisted of a first trust deed securing a $300,000 interest-only promissory note payable to Mr. and Mrs. Heise who sold the property to Wright’s father in 1972; a second trust deed securing a $167,000 promissory note from Wright to his father; and a third trust deed securing…

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.