Fischer

Fischer v. First International Bank

Good Law
1 Cal. Rptr. 3d 162·109 Cal. App. 4th 1433·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 939·2003 Daily Journal DAR 6961·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5529
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 25, 2003D040165California6,605 words

Opinion

Opinion

Aaron, J.

Introduction

This matter is before the court on two separate appeals. Plaintiffs Karl and Pamela Fischer appeal from a summary judgment order and final judgment in favor of defendant First International Bank (FIB or the bank). Defendant Investors Title Company (ITC or escrow company) appeals from a subsequent order granting the Fischers’ motion for new trial as to ITC.

The Fishers’ appeal presents the following question: When a bank enters into a written loan agreement that specifies the collateral for two different loans, and does not state that the loans will be cross-collateralized against each other, may the bank subsequently enforce a broadly worded “dragnet” clause contained in the fine print of a standard form deed of trust securing one of the loans? On the particular facts of this case, we conclude that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in defendants’ favor on this issue.

With regard to ITC’s appeal, we find that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant a new trial as to ITC because the court failed to act within the 60-day jurisdictional time period after filing and service of the notice of motion and motion for new trial. (Code Civ.…

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.