Transamerica Homefirst, Inc. v. Superior Court

Good Law
69 Cal. App. 4th 577·81 Cal. Rptr. 2d 705
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 25, 1999A084543California1,302 words

Opinion

Opinion

Jones, J.

The question we are asked to resolve is whether an action brought on behalf of a conservatee by the county’s public guardian against a nonresident defendant must be transferred to a neutral county in accordance with section 394 of the Code of Civil Procedure, subdivision (a). We conclude that such an action is not one “brought by” a county agency within the meaning of section 394. Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandate to compel the trial court to transfer venue.

Background

Transamerica Homefirst, Inc. (Homefirst), is a real estate lender that made a reverse mortgage to Berta Gray in 1994 on her Burlingame home. In 1997 the Public Guardian of San Mateo County was appointed conservator of the person and estate of Berta Gray. In July 1998 the probate court granted permission to the public guardian to proceed with a lawsuit. The public guardian, as conservator for Berta Gray, thereupon filed the present class action lawsuit against Homefirst to challenge the validity of Homefirst’s reverse mortgage program. The action was filed in San Mateo County; Homefirst is headquartered in San Francisco.

Homefirst moved to transfer the action to a neutral county in…

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.