Bays
Bays v. Ashcraft CA4/1
Opinion
Opinion
Irion, J.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1
A. The Parties The parties in this appeal are the Bayses, as respondents, and Ashcraft, as appellant. They are the only parties to the postjudgment attorney fees order on review. The case went to trial on a first amended verified complaint (Complaint) and a first amended cross-complaint (Cross-complaint). In the trial court, the Bayses were the plaintiffs and were included among the cross- defendants; and Ashcraft was included among the defendants and was the cross-complainant. At all relevant times, the Bayses owned and lived in a single-family home in La Selva Beach. At all relevant times, Ashcraft was a “ ‘hard money’ ” lender, doing
business as First Foundation Funding (FFF).2 She was a licensed real estate salesperson, although she “held no mortgage lending license or other finance license that would grant her an exception to California’s usury law.” B. The Bayses Borrow $150,000 from Ashcraft In early 2008, the Bayses needed money and were able to offer a lender a second mortgage on their home as collateral for a loan. When they were unable to obtain a conventional loan, their mortgage loan broker turned to a