612 SOUTH LLC v. Laconic Limited Partnership

Good Law
109 Cal. Rptr. 3d 780·184 Cal. App. 4th 1270·2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 734
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 25, 2010D056646California5,654 words

Opinion

Opinion

McINTYRE, J.

In this case, a bondholder sought and obtained a judgment ordering the foreclosure and sale of property subject to a water district bond issued under the provisions of the Improvement Act of 1911 (the 1911 Act; Sts. & Hy. Code, § 5000 et seq.) and the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 (the 1913 Act; Sts. & Hy. Code, § 10000 et seq.). (Undesignated statutory references are to the Streets and Highways Code.) The property owner appeals from that part of the judgment ordering (1) a personal deficiency judgment against it and (2) the award of $139,516 in attorney fees to the bondholder for prosecuting the action. The property owner also appeals from a postjudgment order setting the appellate bond amount, arguing that amount was excessive because the court improperly entered a deficiency judgment. In a cross-appeal, the bondholder challenges the attorney fee and cost award on the ground that the trial court erred by deciding the matter without a noticed motion or consideration of all the evidence.

We reject the property owner’s contention that failure to index the notice of assessment under the name of the property owner in the county recorder’s office rendered the lien…

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.