Sosna

Sosna v. Baranov

Good Law
1966 Cal. App. LEXIS 1369·240 Cal. App. 2d 460·49 Cal. Rptr. 621
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 25, 1966Civ. No. 7645California1,994 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Conley, J.

One of the defendants, Edward Baranov, appeals from a judgment for $12,263.12, besides interest., attorneys’ fees and costs, in favor of the plaintiff; the principal sum is the balance due on a promissory note executed by Louis M. Barrack, Julia Barrack, and Edward Baranov. The judgment was against all three; the Barracks defaulted and the judgment is final as to them. Edward Baranov alone argues two points for a reversal, claiming that the promissory note in question is secured by a purchase-money second deed of trust and that, by reason thereof, no deficiency judgment may be obtained; he also urges that as an accommo *461 dation comaker of the note he is protected from personal liability by reason of the applicable anti-deficiency legislation.

The essential portion of section 580b of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was in existence at the time the note was executed and at the time of the trial provided: “No deficiency judgment shall lie in any event after any sale of real property for failure of the purchaser to complete his contract of sale, or under a deed of trust, or mortgage, given to secure payment of the balance of the purchase price of real property.”

If,…

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.