Ainsworth

Pacific Inland Bank v. Ainsworth

Good Law
1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 1248·41 Cal. App. 4th 277·48 Cal. Rptr. 2d 489·95 Daily Journal DAR 16987·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9821
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 21, 1995G016526California2,294 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sonenshine, J.

Pacific Inland Bank (PIB) appeals from a judgment granting Charles Ainsworth and Ainsworth Appraisal Services’ (Ainsworth) motion for summary judgment and dismissal of its complaint. The court concluded the full credit bid rule barred PIB from maintaining a negligence action against Ainsworth, a third party nonborrower. We agree and affirm.

I

Santiago Investors, wishing to develop two vacant parcels, approached PIB for a $300,000 loan. PIB retained Ainsworth to appraise the properties and determine, inter alia, whether applicable zoning restrictions permitted the proposed construction of a shopping center on one parcel and a gas station on the other.

The appraisals indicated the properties were zoned for commercial use and valued the shopping center site at $1.5 million and the gas station site at $225,000. Based on this information, PIB loaned Santiago $300,000 secured by a first deed of trust.

All did not proceed as planned. Contrary to Ainsworth’s appraisals, the properties were not zoned for commercial use. Santiago defaulted on the loan and PIB foreclosed on the lien, eventually acquiring both parcels at a nonjudicial foreclosure sale after tendering a full…

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.