Oliver

Oliver v. Bledsoe

Good Law
1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 548·5 Cal. App. 4th 998·7 Cal. Rptr. 2d 382·92 Daily Journal DAR 5492·17 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 1326
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 24, 1992A052393California4,747 words

Opinion

Opinion

Werdegar, J.

Burlingame Bank & Trust Co. (Bank) appeals from an adverse judgment after hearing on its third party claim to a promissory note and deed of trust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 720.110 et seq.) In determining the appeal, we consider the interaction between section 9505, subdivision (2) of the California Uniform Commercial Code, which permits a secured creditor to foreclose on an item of collateral without sale, and the provisions of the Enforcement of Judgments Law (Code Civ. Proc., § 680.010 et seq.) that govern the survival, extinction, expiration, and enforcement of execution liens. We will hold that (1) a secured creditor with notice of the lien may not extinguish an execution lien by utilizing the foreclosure procedure set forth at California Uniform Commercial Code section 9505, subdivision (2), where this result is prejudicial to the lienholder and the lienholder has not received notice of the proposed foreclosure; and (2) such a purported foreclosure does not prevent the attachment of a subsequent overlapping execution lien.

Background

At issue in this case is a $500,000 promissory note executed by Kristoffer Ning Chang in favor of James Bledsoe and secured by a deed 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.