NICOLOPULOS

NICOLOPULOS v. Superior Court

Bad Law
106 Cal. App. 4th 304·130 Cal. Rptr. 2d 626·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 226·2003 Daily Journal DAR 1839·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1406
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 14, 2003B162084California2,856 words

Opinion

Opinion

Boland, J.

Summary

Petitioner Stephen Nicolopulos sought a writ of mandate after the trial court denied his application for a temporary restraining order to prevent the foreclosure sale of his property under a deed of trust held by Louis W. Bourgeois III. Nicolopulos contends Bourgeois has no right to foreclose on the property because the lien of his deed of trust (a) was extinguished under Civil Code section 2911 when the statute of limitations ran on the underlying promissory note, or (b) expired under Civil Code section 882.020, subdivision (a)(1), 10 years after May 28, 1991, the maturity date of the promissory note.

We conclude Nicolopulos is mistaken on both counts, and has failed to demonstrate the applicability of any equitable principle that would bar Bourgeois from exercising the power of sale in his deed of trust. Because the trial court correctly denied Nicolopulos’s application, we deny Nicolopulos’s petition for a writ of mandate.

Factual and Procedural Background

Stephen Nicolopulos and Tom Phillips jointly purchased real property in Lawndale in May 1988. Nicolopulos and Phillips entered into a first mortgage with Citibank, and also signed a promissory note to…

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.