LaForgia

LaForgia v. Kolsky

Good Law
196 Cal. App. 3d 1103·1987 Cal. App. LEXIS 2404·242 Cal. Rptr. 282
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 8, 1987D005590California3,791 words

Opinion

Opinion

Work, J.

—The trial court granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of respondents (hereafter LaForgia or the LaForgia group) after finding they were entitled to a deficiency judgment against appellants (hereafter Kolsky or the Kolsky group) for the balance due on a promissory note secured by a second deed of trust on real property sold to a senior lienholder at a private foreclosure sale. We reverse and direct the trial court to enter summary judgment for Kolsky. The property had been in bankruptcy, then had been removed from bankruptcy and sold to Kolsky, and then later foreclosed upon by the senior lienholder. During the sale to Kolsky, LaForgia became the equivalent of a vendor by executing new and different financing documents with the new purchaser, Kolsky. Had LaForgia not done so, the sale to Kolsky would not have occurred and the property would have remained in bankruptcy subject to foreclosure by the senior lienholder and LaForgia would have lost its investment. LaForgia, as a “vendor” under Code of Civil Procedure section 580b, is barred from obtaining a deficiency judgment.

I

The following facts are undisputed. In March 1980, mortgage broker William Graham…

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.