Gaffney v. Downey Savings and Loan Association

200 Cal. App. 3d 1154 (1988)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Gaffney v. Downey Savings and Loan Association

California Court of Appeal
200 Cal. App. 3d 1154 (1988)

Facts

Donna Gaffney and Michael Gaffney (plaintiffs) took out a loan from Downey Savings and Loan Association (Downey) (defendant) in exchange for a promissory note secured by a deed of trust on real property owned by the Gaffneys. The note called for the Gaffneys to tender monthly installments to Downey that had to arrive by the sixteenth day of each month. The Gaffneys fell two months behind on their payments while they attempted to borrow more money from a different lender. By the third month, the Gaffneys secured the second loan. On the sixteenth day of the third month, two checks were delivered to Downey. First was a check from the new lender for the past-due amount plus late fees. Second was a check from the Gaffneys for that month’s installment. Neither check indicated that it was merely one of two components of the total amount due to Downey. Downey’s payment processors flagged each check individually as insufficient to cover the full amount the Gaffneys owed, and Downey returned the checks uncashed with notices of the payment errors. The notices informed the Gaffneys that Downey planned to foreclose. The Gaffneys engaged their lawyer, Jerry Sandefur, who opened a bank account into which he deposited an amount equal to the sum of the two checks Downey rejected. Sandefur represented to Downey that the account was a trust account for Downey’s benefit, although Sandefur did not structure the account to grant Downey access to the funds. Sandefur also informed Downey that the Gaffneys would be suing Downey to have the promissory note and deed of trust extinguished on account of Downey’s refusal to accept the checks. After the Gaffneys filed suit, Downey offered to waive any late fees and cease foreclosure proceedings if the Gaffneys resubmitted the full amounts of past-due installments. Sandefur refused the offer. To prepare for foreclosure, Downey sent appraisers to the property, which the Gaffneys claimed caused them emotional distress. The trial court issued several rulings favorable to the Gaffneys. The trial court extinguished the note and deed of trust, awarded compensatory damages for emotional distress, and awarded punitive damages. Downey appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Sparks, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 811,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership