Hollander

Hollander v. California Manufacturing Enterprises, Inc.

Good Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 327·44 Cal. App. 4th 561·51 Cal. Rptr. 2d 694·96 Daily Journal DAR 4221·32 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 348
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 11, 1996B080015California3,202 words

Opinion

Opinion

VOGEL (C. S.), P. J.—

In this case we confront the question of whether a party who is both the secured creditor on a promissory note and a lessor of real property must give notice of sale to the guarantor of the note prior to selling collateral abandoned by the insolvent debtor/lessee when it vacated the leasehold. We agree with the trial court that failure to give notice precludes the creditor from seeking a deficiency judgment, and therefore affirm the judgment entered in favor of the guarantor.

Background

Appellant George Hollander owned and operated an aluminum finishing, anodizing, and processing facility, the Aluminum Processing Company. Appellant also owned the real property on which the business was located. In March of 1984, appellant, his wife, and the Aluminum Processing Company entered into an asset purchase agreement with APC Acquisition, Inc. (APC) under which APC purchased the assets of the company. A portion of the purchase price was paid in the form of a $550,000 promissory note secured “by a security interest in certain machinery and equipment owned by APC Acquisition, Inc.” The holder of the security interest (at that time the Aluminum Processing…

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.