Dreyfuss v. Union Bank of California
California Supreme Court
11 P.3d 383 (2000)
Facts
Union Bank of California (bank) (defendant) loaned Gilbert and Evelyn Dreyfuss (plaintiffs) money for their purchase of real estate known as the Peppertree, Clinton, and Lot 66 properties. All three loans were secured by deeds of trust that provided for nonjudicial foreclosure in the event of default. The Dreyfusses repeatedly defaulted on the Peppertree loan, and after several attempts to help the Dreyfusses refinance the loan, the bank finally decided to nonjudicially foreclose on the Peppertree property. The Peppertree sale realized less than the property’s fair market value and left a large balance on the Dreyfusses’ loan. The bank recouped that balance by nonjudicially foreclosing on the Clinton and Lot 66 properties. The Dreyfusses sued, contending that the bank should have obtained a deficiency judgment on the Peppertree sale before selling the Clinton and Lot 66 properties and that the bank should have credited the Dreyfusses with the Peppertree property’s fair market value. An appellate court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for the bank. The Dreyfusses appealed to the California Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Mosk, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 684,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 42,800 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
