Bodge

Aspen Enterprises, Inc. v. Bodge

Good Law
1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 862·37 Cal. App. 4th 1811·44 Cal. Rptr. 2d 763·44 Cal. Rptr. 763·95 Daily Journal DAR 12029
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 5, 1995D018819California5,869 words

Opinion

Opinion

Huffman, J.

Plaintiff Aspen Enterprises, Inc. (Aspen) sued defendants Gerald and Karen Bodge (collectively Bodge) on a promissory note secured by both real property and personal property. At the outset of the action Aspen repossessed personal property collateral consisting of an inventory of new tires. At trial, the court granted Bodge’s motion for nonsuit based on what was stipulated to be Aspen’s opening statement, concluding Aspen was barred under the California Uniform Commercial Code from seeking a deficiency judgment.

Aspen appeals the grant of nonsuit, contending: (1) its cause of action for judicial foreclosure was not an action for a deficiency judgment because California Uniform Commercial Code section 9501 authorizes a creditor whose security is mixed real and personal property to proceed in any sequence against the collateral without triggering an antideficiency bar; (2) it was not required to give notice of sale of the repossessed collateral under section 9504 because there is a recognized market for the collateral; (3) it was not required to give notice of sale of the repossessed collateral because, at the time of the initial hearing on the motion for nonsuit, the…

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.