Munger v. Moore
California Court of Appeal
11 Cal. App. 3d 1 (1970)
- Written by Daniel Clark, JD
Facts
Reichert owned a piece of real property. The property was encumbered by a first deed of trust in favor of Home Foundation Savings and Loan (Home) and a second deed of trust in favor of Atwill (defendant). The trustee of the second deed of trust was Valley Title Company (Valley) (defendant). Maynard Munger (plaintiff) made a loan to Reichert in exchange for a third deed of trust in favor of Munger. Munger then advanced Reichert an additional amount of money. This additional loan was secured by a bilateral transaction in which Reichert conveyed a grant deed on the property to Munger and Munger issued an option to repurchase the property to Reichert upon the satisfaction of Munger’s two loans. Reichert defaulted on his obligation secured by the second deed of trust. Munger tendered to Valley the amount needed to cure Reichert’s default, but Valley, at Atwill’s behest, refused it. Valley held a foreclosure sale at which Robert Moore (defendant) purchased the property. Several years later, Moore sold the property. Munger, asserting that the foreclosure sale had been improper, sued Atwill, Valley, and Moore, seeking monetary damages. The trial court ruled in favor of Munger, awarding him $30,000, the amount the trial court found to be the market value of the property at the time of the foreclosure sale. Atwill, Valley, and Moore appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Molinari, 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.