Stanford Law School - Robert Crown Law Library
Home > Opinions > Hammond v. Stanley
Citation 5 Cal.2d 783
Hammond v. Stanley
Hammond v. Stanley, 5 Cal.2d 783
[L. A. No. 15680. In Bank. January 28, 1936.]
KARL R. HAMMOND et al., Appellants, v. ROWLAND P. STANLEY et al., Respondents.
Voorhees & Voorhees for Appellants.
George W. Burch, Jr., for Respondents.
OPINION OF THE COURT
THE COURT.
[1] The sole question involved in this appeal is whether section 2924 1/2 of the Civil Code, enacted in 1933, which section precludes the entry of a deficiency judgment unless one year, as distinguished from the former period of three months, has elapsed between the recordation of the notice of breach and election to sell and the date of sale under a deed of trust, may be applied to deeds of trust executed prior to the effective date of the section. The trial court, by sustaining a demurrer to the complaint without leave to amend, concluded that the section should be given a retroactive application. This is contrary to our decision in Brown v. Ferdon, L. A. No. 14775 (ante, p. 226 [54 PaCal.2d 712]), this day filed, wherein we held that the section could not be retroactively applied without doing violence to the "contract clause" of the Constitution.
For the reasons advanced in Brown v. Ferdon, supra, and upon the authority thereof, the judgment herein is reversed. [5 Cal.2d 784]
Opinion Information
Date: Citation: Category: Status:
Tue, 01/28/1936 5 Cal.2d 783 Review - Civil Appeal Opinion issued
1 KARL R. HAMMOND et al., Appellants, v. ROWLAND P. STANLEY et al. (Respondent)
2 ROWLAND P. STANLEY et al. (Respondent)
Jan 28 1936 Opinion: Reversed
Cite This Case
Cite Case Link
SCOCAL, Hammond v. Stanley , 5 Cal.2d 783 available at: (https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/hammond-v-stanley-24997) (last visited Friday January 21, 2022).
Copyright © 2009 Stanford University
SCOCAL
Stanford Law Library
Justia.com