Weinstein

Weinstein v. Rocha

Good Law
145 Cal. Rptr. 3d 93·2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 852·208 Cal. App. 4th 92·2012 WL 3105974
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 1, 2012No. B235931California2,063 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Croskey, J.

Appellants Alan and Dorina Weinstein (the Weinsteins), purchasers of real property, appeal from an order enforcing a settlement agreement between them and the seller, respondent Juan Rocha.

The property’s purchase was partially financed by a promissory note in favor of Rocha, secured by a second trust deed. The primary financing was supplied by the holder of the senior first trust deed. Rocha and the Weinsteins later entered into a settlement agreement to dismiss the Weinsteins’ action against Rocha for alleged failed disclosures concerning the sale. The agreement altered the provisions of the promissory note by, inter alia, lowering the amount of the debt.

The Weinsteins later stopped paying on Rocha’s note, and he obtained a judgment against them for the note’s entire balance. The Weinsteins assert that the antideficiency statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 580b) should have limited Rocha’s relief to foreclosing the promissory note’s security.

We hold that, as the settlement agreement effected a modification of the promissory note, Rocha’s right to recover on the secondary lien was limited by the antideficiency statute. We therefore reverse the trial court’s…

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.