Shlens

Defendant Robert D. Shlens appeals from a summary judgment granted in favor of plaintiff on its first amended complaint for judicial foreclosure of a deed of trust and for a declaration that plaintiff is entitled to a deficiency judgment against Shlens for all amounts due under the note which are left unsatisfied after foreclosure and sale of the property. Plaintiff appeals from the denial of its postjudgment motion for attorney’s fees and costs under Civil Code section 1717. The principal issue on defendant’s appeal is whether the trial court properly determined that as a matter of law plaintiff was entitled to a deficiency judgment against Shlens in that Shlens’s state law defenses were barred under the federal common law doctrine known as the D’Oench, Duhme doctrine (D’Oench, Duhme & Co. v. F.D.I.C. (1942) 315 U.S. 447 [ 62 S.Ct. 676 , 86 L.Ed. 956 ]), or under the doctrine’s “partial codification” (Weber v. New West Federal Savings & Loan Assn. (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 97, 99 [ 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 468 ]) in the federal statutes at 12 United States Code section 1823 (e) (section 1823(e)).

Factual and Procedural Background

On January 22, 1988, Western Bank, as broker for…