Goodman

Goodman v. Williams

Good Law
107 Cal. App. 4th 294·132 Cal. Rptr. 2d 106·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 441·2003 Daily Journal DAR 3227·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2569
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 21, 2003B156080California4,647 words

Opinion

Opinion

Boland, J.

Summary

This appeal raises an issue of statutory construction. Does the Improvement Act of 1911 allow the holder of a newly apportioned improvement bond to maintain a foreclosure action based on unpaid apportioned penalties that accrued under a predecessor bond, if the property owner has tendered the apportioned principal and the delinquent interest on the predecessor bond, but refuses to pay the penalties? We conclude the answer is “yes.”

Factual and Procedural Background

We first describe the applicable statutory scheme, and then relate the circumstances in which its provisions are to be applied in this case.

1. The statutory scheme.

The Improvement Act of 1911, as set forth in the Streets and Highways Code, permits the formation of assessment districts for the purpose of constructing and maintaining public improvements. (Sts. & Hy. Code, § 5000 et seq.) The legislative body of a city or county is authorized to charge the cost of the improvements to the district benefited by the improvements, and to assess the cost upon the real property within the district. (§§ 5180, 5821.) The legislative body may issue bonds to represent the assessment on each lot or parcel of…

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.