Hummel

Hummel v. First National Bank of Nevada

Good Law
191 Cal. App. 3d 489·1987 Cal. App. LEXIS 1621·236 Cal. Rptr. 449
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 27, 1987B014964California2,287 words

Opinion

Opinion

Feinerman, J.

Appellant, Errett Allan Hummel, seeks reversal of an order confirming the partition sale of certain real property. The subject property, which is situated in Beverly Hills, consists of 11 lots which are part of a 16-lot parcel which occupies an entire trapezoidal shaped block bounded by Santa Monica Boulevard, Lasky Drive, Durant Drive, and Charleville Boulevard. At the commencement of the lawsuit, appellant had a beneficial 1-1/2 percent interest in the subject property. Respondent, Mont Pelerin Corporation, N.V., owned a 69 percent interest in the subject property and also had sole ownership of four of the remaining five lots in the parcel. The 16th lot was owned by a stranger to the lawsuit.

The trial court entered an interlocutory judgment on June 28, 1982, ordering partition of the subject property by sale. An appeal was taken from that judgment by appellant and various other owners of partial interests in the subject property. The judgment was affirmed by Division Four of this court on May 23,1984. Efforts to obtain review of that decision by the California and United States Supreme Courts were unsuccessful.

In October 1984, appellant requested the trial court to…

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.