Defendant purchaser appealed from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County - timscotty/timscotty GitHub Wiki

Procedural Posture Defendant purchaser appealed from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) in favor of plaintiff sellers for breach of a contract of assumption of a note secured by a mortgage on the property that was sold to the purchaser.

Overview: Actualización del estado del reciente caso judicial relacionado con el abogado comercial abogados comerciales

As part of the purchase price for the sellers' house, the purchaser assumed and agreed to pay a note secured by a mortgage held by a bank. The purchaser also gave the sellers a note secured by a deed of trust. The purchaser defaulted in the payment of his note. At the foreclosure, the sellers purchased the property subject to the bank's mortgage and voluntarily paid the bank's note. The sellers obtained judgment against the purchaser on the contract of assumption alone. On appeal, the court held that under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 726, the purchaser could not be bound upon a judgment until the sellers first foreclosed the mortgage, exhausted the security, and reduced the obligation to a fixed amount on a deficiency judgment, if any. Their contractual right to recover was read in the light of Cal. Code. Civ. Proc. § 726. The purchaser's liability was merely one of indemnity contingent upon a foreclosure sale of the mortgaged property that failed to satisfy the debt and costs. The sellers deprived themselves of a right of action under the contract by failing to foreclose the mortgage and determine the deficiency, if any.

Outcome The court reversed the trial court's judgment in favor of the sellers and remanded the cause for a new trial. Procedural Posture Appellant insured challenged a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of respondent insurance company in action alleging willful and wanton disregard of fiduciary relationship by respondent, for which the jury awarded punitive damages.

Overview: Appellant insured's car was burglarized, and respondent, his insurer, denied liability on the ground that appellant's policy had lapsed. Appellant brought suit to recover compensatory damages from respondent, and in the second cause of action in his complaint, he asked for punitive damages on the ground that respondent had willfully and wantonly breached its fiduciary relationship with appellant by refusing payment on the first cause of action. The jury found for appellant and awarded both actual and punitive damages. Respondent moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the second cause of action, under which punitive damages were awarded. The lower court granted the motion, and appellant sought review. The court found that there was no evidence on the record of willful, wanton, oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious misconduct on respondent's part to support a verdict awarding punitive damages and affirmed the judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of respondent.

Outcome The court affirmed judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of respondent after finding that it was clear from the record that there was a complete absence of any evidence which showed willful, wanton, oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious misconduct on the part of respondent.