Defendant buyers appealed

Procedural Posture

Defendant buyers appealed from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which found in favor of plaintiff sellers in their action to recover certain monthly payments alleged to be due pursuant to the terms of a land sales contract. The best litigation attorneys have skills of Client development and Negotiation and they will help you in litigation cases.

Overview

The court reversed the trial court's judgment, holding Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 580b barred a deficiency judgment against the buyers. Section 580b provided that a seller could not recover a deficiency judgment after any sale of real property for failure of the purchaser to complete his sales contract, given to the seller to secure payment of the balance of the purchase price. Here, the transaction was similar to a purchase money mortgage. Upon the execution of the contract, the buyers were to take possession of the property and to make monthly payments to the sellers until a specified portion of the purchase price was paid, at which time the parties would enter into an escrow and complete the sale. Thus, the contract operated as a security device. Further, § 580b applied to a contract of sale even where there had been no prior sale. When the vendor under a security-type land sale contract received a personal money judgment against the vendee for breach of this contract without first going against the security, he received, in effect, a deficiency judgment. Since only the land could be called upon to satisfy the debt, the fact that there had not been a prior sale was irrelevant.

Outcome

The court reversed the trial court's judgment in favor of the sellers.

Outcome

The court reversed the judgment as to the principal, with directions to the trial court to enter judgment against him and in favor of the real estate agents in their action to recover damages for breach of an exclusive agency contract.

Outcome

The court reversed an order of the lower court that granted a writ of mandate commanding appellant State Division of Labor Law Enforcement of the Department of Industrial Relations and the State Labor Commissioner to sustain a demurrer to and dismiss a proceeding pending before them where appellant commissioner had the authority to determined disputes between an employment agency and an applicant under the employment agency statute.

I'm Anne Tyner. I provide guest post service