Kahn v. Berman
California Court of Appeal
198 Cal. App. 3d 1499, 244 Cal. Rptr. 575 (1988)
- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
William and John Kahn (plaintiffs) purchased a rental business in Las Vegas, Nevada, from William Berman and others (defendants). In July 1984, the Kahns obtained a judgment against Berman and his wife for over $1.2 million in Nevada state court. The next day, the Kahns filed an abstract of the Nevada judgment in San Mateo County, California. In March 1985, the San Mateo County Superior Court entered a judgment against the Bermans, based on the Nevada judgment. The Kahns served a notice of entry of judgment on the Bermans in September 1985. The Kahns requested a writ of execution from the San Mateo County court in February 1986, and the sheriff levied the writ of execution in March 1986. The Kahns applied for an order authorizing the sale of the property at the end of March. The Bermans recorded a declaration of homestead on the property in April. Finally, the Kahns recorded an abstract of the California judgment in May 1986. The trial court determined that the March writ of execution created an execution lien with priority over the April declaration of homestead. The trial court also determined that the Bermans were not entitled to a homestead exemption and that the fair market value of the home was $450,000. The Bermans appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sabraw, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 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.