Miscione v. Barton Development Company
Court of Appeal of California for the Fourth Appellate District
52 Cal. App. 4th 1320, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 280 (1997)
- Written by Ron Leshnower, JD
Facts
Barton Development Company (Barton) (defendant) leased space at a California shopping center. The lease contained subordination, nondisturbance, and attornment (SNDA) provisions under which Barton agreed that the lease would stay in force in the event of a foreclosure and that Barton would recognize a successor as the rightful landlord under the lease. Earlier, Barton had borrowed $7.6 million from Coast Federal Savings (Coast) in return for a trust deed on the property that required Coast’s approval of any new lease. After Barton defaulted on the lease, Coast foreclosed the deed of trust, then sold the property to John Miscione (plaintiff). Miscione, as the property’s successor landlord, sued Barton for breach of the lease and fraud. Barton moved the trial court for summary judgment, claiming that the lease was subordinate to Coast’s earlier deed of trust, which had been foreclosed. Miscione claimed that the deed of trust foreclosure did not extinguish Barton’s subordinate lease and that Barton attorned to Coast and its assignees, including Miscione, as the property’s new landlord by expressly agreeing to be bound under the lease. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Barton. Miscione appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ward, C.J.)
Dissent (Hollenhorst, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 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.