Howlow

Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Howlow

Good Law
23 F. App'x 786
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 10, 2001Nos. 00-55926, 01-55301; D.C. No.CV-99-1074 CBM (Ajws)California851 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Howlow Limited Partnership appeals various orders arising from a judicial foreclosure action closed by civil minute order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1291, and affirm the district court’s orders.

Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we will not recite them in detail except as necessary.

In case No. 00-55926, Howlow argues that the district court erred by holding that Ford Credit was entitled to the rents collected after Ford Credit filed an action for a preliminary injunction and appoint- *788 merit of a receiver. We review this question of law de novo. Salve Regina College v. Russell, 499 U.S. 225, 231 , 111 S.Ct. 1217 , 113 L.Ed.2d 190 (1991). We agree with the district court that when Ford Credit filed an action for appointment of a receiver and a preliminary injunction, it took a sufficient “enforcement step” under former California Civil Code § 2938 to entitle it to the rents assigned by the deed of trust. Cf. MDFC Loan Corp. v. Greenbrier Plaza Partners, 21 Cal.App.4th 1045 , 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 596 (1994) (as modified Feb. 2, 1994) (suggesting that filing a legal action is a “demand” that qualifies as an “enforcement step”…

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.