Perkins v. Chad Development Corp.
California Court of Appeal
95 Cal. App. 3d 645 (1979)
- Written by Daniel Clark, JD
Facts
Chad Development Corporation (Chad) (defendant) issued a promissory note secured by a deed of trust on real property. Although Chad executed only a single note and a single deed of trust, the deed of trust had two separate beneficiaries, Jerry Perkins (plaintiff) and R. P. Wilson. Chad initially paid in full its monthly installments under the note to either Perkins or Wilson. Eventually, however, Chad began making partial payments only to Wilson and ceased paying Perkins altogether. Wilson died, and Chad continued the partial payments to Wilson’s widow, Mina. Chad continued to struggle to satisfy the financial demands of the property, defaulting on another deed of trust and falling delinquent on the property’s taxes. Perkins asked Mina to file a joint notice of default with an election to sell the property under their deed of trust. After Mina refused, Perkins filed a notice of default with an election to sell. Perkins purchased the property at the trustee’s sale and later filed an action to quiet title. The successor to Chad’s interest filed as an intervenor in the action, arguing that he retained an interest in the property. The trial court held that Perkins’s foreclosure was valid and that Perkins had quiet title in the property.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Tamura, 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. 46,400 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.
