Butterfield

Butterfield v. Tietz

Good Law
1966 Cal. App. LEXIS 987·247 Cal. App. 2d 483·55 Cal. Rptr. 577
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 23, 1966Civ. 8250California1,022 words

Opinion

Opinion

Finley, J.

Appellant Belho Corporation was not originally a party to this action. It did not become involved as a party until after judgment in the amount of $12,161.55 was entered in favor of plaintiff-respondent Butter-field and against defendants-respondents as judgment debtors. A writ of execution was issued and certain real property originally belonging to defendants-respondents, but then standing in the name of appellant, was sold to Butterfield at execution sale. Shortly thereafter Butterfield successfully presented a motion to set the sale aside. Appellant prosecutes this appeal as record title holder of the property thus sold, claiming to be aggrieved and that as an aggrieved party, although not a party to the original action, he has a right of appeal.

At the sale, when the bidding was opened, Butterfield, speaking through his attorney, offered $1,000. There being no other bids, the property was sold to him for $1,000. The selling officer together with Butterfield and his attorney, then went to the marshal’s office to execute the necessary papers. At this point the selling officer sought to clarify what the $1,000 was intended to cover by asking Butterfield if his bid included…

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.