Hicks

Hicks v. E. T. Legg & Associates

Good Law
108 Cal. Rptr. 2d 10·2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 392·2001 Daily Journal DAR 5291·89 Cal. App. 4th 496·2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4327
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 25, 2001D034398California5,865 words

Opinion

Opinion

Benke, J.

Under Civil Code section 2924c, subdivision (e), the trustors under a deed of trust have the right to cure a default and reinstate the loan “at any time . . . until five business days prior to the date of sale” set forth in the initial or subsequent notice of sale or orally declared on the date of any postponement. Under section 2924g, subdivision (d), a foreclosure sale may not be held until seven calendar days after expiration of an injunction or bankruptcy stay that required the postponement of a sale. The issue here is whether the postponement of a foreclosure sale numerous times for five or fewer business days during the time a sale was enjoined or stayed—thereby precluding revival of an expired reinstatement period— violates legislative intent. As an apparent matter of first impression, we conclude it does not. We also hold that under the circumstances here, the serial postponements did not violate the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

Factual and Procedural History

In 1991 Richard B. Hicks and Mafalda B. Hicks borrowed $935,000 from Bank of America (Bank) and executed a promissory note and deed of trust…

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.