Hunt v. Smyth
California Court of Appeal
25 Cal. App. 3d 807 (1972)
- Written by Daniel Clark, JD
Facts
The Hunts (plaintiffs), a married couple, purchased real property from Ted Smyth (defendant). A large portion of the purchase price was covered by a promissory note executed by the Hunts to Smyth. The note called for monthly payments of $250 for seven years and then monthly payments of $350 until the note was fully paid off. The note also allowed Smyth to demand immediate, full repayment of the note if the Hunts defaulted. The Hunts proved to be unreliable debtors. The Hunts’ checks were frequently late, and sometimes the Hunts failed to pay a monthly installment altogether. Moreover, even after the first eight years, the Hunts never increased the amount they sent in an installment to $350. Smyth called the Hunts frequently to urge them to pay late or missing installments, with mixed success. Eventually, Smyth sent the Hunts a notice that he would no longer accept any checks for $250, pointing out that he was owed $350 per month at this point, and demanded full repayment of any delinquent amounts. The Hunts continued to attempt to send $250 checks. Smyth returned the checks and filed a notice of default. The Hunts filed an action seeking to enjoin Smyth. The trial court, after issuing a preliminary injunction, ruled in favor of Smyth, and the Hunts appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sims, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
