Dorer

Dorer v. McKinzey

Good Law
10 Cal. Rptr. 287·188 Cal. App. 2d 199·1961 Cal. App. LEXIS 2410
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 12, 1961Civ. No. 10033California457 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Dyke, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment denying foreclosure of a mechanic’s lien.

On August 22, 1957, appellant recorded a timely notice of a claim of lien in the amount of $1,002.98 for labor and materials furnished by him and used by the defendant McKinzey in the construction of a house for the respondents. On November 18, 1957, appellant recorded a notice of extension of credit to December 26, 1957, for payment of the amount of the claimed lien. The present action to foreclose the lien, instituted on February 28, 1958, was found by the trial court to be barred by section 1198.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides, in part, as follows:

The trial court’s judgment was based on findings that the respondents did not request nor agree to any extension of credit. It was not necessary that they do so. Richards v. Hillside Development Co., 177 Cal.App.2d 776 [ 2 Cal.Rptr. 693 ], upon which respondents heavily rely, is clearly distinguishable. In that case the owner of the property against which the lien was claimed was the principal debtor. Not so herein. The respondents did not incur the indebtedness and it does *201 not appear that they assumed the obligation. Consequently,…

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.