Miranda

Miranda v. MacIas

Good Law
141 Cal. App. 3d 188·191 Cal. Rptr. 177·1983 Cal. App. LEXIS 1524
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 24, 1983Civ. 26081California1,466 words

Opinion

Opinion

Work, J.

Plaintiffs Angel and Mary Miranda, James and Patricia Unger and Juan and Ma Teresa Hernandez appeal a judgment of foreclosure ordering the sheriff to sell certain real property to satisfy a lien secured by a deed of tmst. We hold the trial court erred in refusing to apply the rationale of Wellenkamp v. Bank of America (1978) 21 Cal.3d 943 [ 148 Cal.Rptr. 379 , 582 P.2d 970 ], and reverse.

Factual and Procedural Background

On March 29, 1978, the Mirandas and the Ungers purchased certain commercial real property from Salvador Macias. Macias took back a promissory note secured by deed of tmst, both containing a standard due-on-sale clause. On August 25, 1978, our Supreme Court in Wellenkamp v. Bank of America, supra, 21 Cal.3d 943, 953 , prohibited institutional lenders from enforcing due-on-sale clauses in promissory notes or tmst deeds upon an outright sale unless the lender demonstrates enforcement is reasonably necessary to prevent impairment of security or risk of default. On April 17, 1979, the Mirandas and the Ungers conveyed the cited real property to the Hernandezes without Macias’ written consent. Relying on the due-on-sale provision, Macias filed a notice of…

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.