Williams v. Meyer CA2/6

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 3, 2013B243491MCalifornia1,486 words

Opinion

Opinion

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Since 2000, Williams has been the sole owner of a home in Newbury Park, California. In 2008, she and her estranged husband cosigned a promissory note and deed of trust for a $35,000 loan from Meyer secured by her home (First Note). A few months later, Williams's husband signed a second promissory note and deed of trust for a $143,775 loan from Meyer, also secured

1 Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Civil Code. by Williams's home (Second Note). Williams had no knowledge of the second loan or deed of trust. Both notes have attorney fees provisions. Williams sued Meyer to invalidate both notes. Among other things, she alleged that the First Note had a usurious interest rate and that her husband had repaid the note in full through his labor, entitling her to reconveyance of the deed of trust. She further alleged that Meyer's recording of the Second Note constituted a slander of her title to the home that had clouded title, causing her to be ineligible for refinancing to a lower interest rate and to incur attorney fees. Meyer counter-sued, alleging that Williams breached and committed fraud with regard to the…

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.