Commercial debtors of debts incurred after July 1, 2025, and under $500,000 are protected from harassment and unfair debt collection practices as codified by California Civil Code § 1788.1 et seq. While the statute does not apply to debtors corporations or limited liability companies, it will apply to personal guarantors of corporate debtors. Debtor attorneys may be able take advantage of the Rosenthal Act’s dispute response and information request provisions to put pressure on a creditor. Statutory penalties range from $100 to $1,000, per violation, as well as punitive damages (see Komarova v. National Credit Acceptance (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 324) and of attorneys’ fees also permitted by statute. See Civil Code §1788.2
Continue Reading Calif.’s Fair Debt Practices Act Expanded to Include Commercial Debts — Civil Code §1788.1 et seq.
The “normal” statute of limitations does NOT apply to foreclose using a power of sale on a Deed of Trust (e.g. private sale)!
Logically, the 4 year statute of limitations of Civil Code §387(1) applies to breach of a promissory note secured by a deed of trust. But foreclosure on the deed of trust is not limited to the “normal” statute of limitations. In Trenk v. Soheili, (Dec. 2020) B295434, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PC058343), the
Attorney Fee Award to Person Found Not to Be a Party to Contract (alleged as alter ego) MSY Trading Inc. v. Saleen Automotive, Inc., G057093
Saleen cars look awesome! Too bad the one in this case (not as pictured) only drove for 50 miles than died. Civil Code §1717 has a mutuality component. The defendant was added as an alter ego of a debtor under a Riverside Superior Court judgment, but was found to NOT be the alter ego. Therefore,
Fraudulent Conveyance Damages Apply to DELAY’S in paying a judgment! (Berger v. Varum (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 1013)
Plaintiff sued for fraudulent transfer. Defendants then paid the judgment, but instead of dismissing his complaint, plaintiff amended it to seek damages caused by the delay in paying the judgment. The trial court sustained defendants’ demurrer. On appeal, plaintiff argued his amended complaint asserted a common law fraudulent transfer claim, which gives rise to
The Court Loses Jurisdiction to Stay Enforcement of Order After Sheriff Levy) Del Riccio v. Sup. Court
Often after a bank levy or eviction (unlawful detainer) lock out, the defendant files a motion for a stay or to be let back into possession. Code of Civil Procedure § 918 can only “stay the enforcement of an judgment or order”. There is nothing to stay after the levy or lockout occurred. As stated