Developments of Interest

New Cases of Interest - June 25, 2019

Banner Photo


Taniguchi v. Restoration Homes, LLC (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 1028.  Borrowers had defaulted after a loan modification and the issue that was before the court was the amount borrowers needed to pay in order to reinstate the loan.  The court of appeal held that the Borrowers had the right to reinstate the modified loan because that right could not be waived (Civil Code § 2953) and could do so by making up the missed payments and paying the late charges and fees, but borrowers did not have to pay the deferred amounts immediately.  An argument that the deferred amounts were due during the term of the modified loan agreement was not persuasive to the court because the agreements exclusively provided that the amounts were deferred until the date of maturity or full payment., Inc. v. DoubleVerify, Inc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 133.  This is a Supreme Court decision on a SLAPP matter and the court indicated that its review was for the purpose of determining whether the commercial nature of defendant’s speech was relevant in determining whether that speech merits protection under the catchall provision contained in the SLAPP statute.  The court concluded that reports submitted by the defendant, DoubleVerify, were for the purpose of making a profit and were exchanged confidentially without being part of nay attempt to participate in a larger discussion, and therefore did not qualify for SLAPP protection under the catchall provision even though the topic of the discussion was generally speaking one of public interest.

Black Sky Capital, LLC v. Cobb (2019) 7 Cal.5th 156.  This is an anti-deficiency issue arising under CCP § 580(d).  The Supreme Court held that under the circumstances of the case, CCP § 580(d) did not preclude a deficiency judgment when the junior loan was extinguished by a nonjudicial foreclosure sale on the senior, even when the junior loan and the senior loan were held by the same lender, with the court particularly noting that there was no evidence to suggest that the two notes arose from any intentional loan splitting but they were in fact executed in separate transactions that were more than two years apart.

Cohen v. Kabbalah Centre International, Inc. (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 13.  In this case the Court of Appeal determined that there was insufficient evidence for a fraud claim on behalf of a nonprofit organization which it failed to use donations from a particular donor as part of its building fund, even though that had been the purpose of accepting the donation because declarations from people who solicited the donation showed that the original intention to buy a building was there, but the organization didn’t get enough financial support and so it changed its intent.  The organization did not owe a financial duty to the donor because the donor was a member of the organization itself.

Related Attorney(s): 

Offering clients the experience and diversity of a larger firm while retaining the approachability, efficiency and personal attention of a smaller practice.