Heritage Bank of Commerce v. Garner
This case involves business loans made by respondent Heritage Bank of Commerce ("Bank") to defendant borrowers, four named limited liability companies, for the purpose of property development. The Bank brought an action for judicial foreclosure (first cause of action against borrowers), specific performance and appointment of a receiver (second cause of action against borrowers), and breach of guaranty (third cause of action against guarantors). The Bank obtained a right to attach order and an order for issuance of a prejudgment writ of attachment against the property of Erin Garner and Susan Garner as trustees of the Erin Garner Living Trust Dated 1997 ("Trust") and other guarantors who were trustees of various trusts.
Erin Garner, Sue Garner, and the Trust appeal from that right to attach order.[1] (See § 904.1, subd. (a)(5).)[2] Appellants state that the "sole issue" on appeal is whether respondent Bank laid "a proper, specific evidentiary foundation" for a prejudgment writ of attachment. They argue that this court must reverse the trial court's orders because they were "totally unsupported by admissible, competent evidence." Their arguments are essentially a challenge to the admissibility of the evidence. They do not argue that the evidence, if admissible, was insufficient.
We affirm.
Comments on Heritage Bank of Commerce v. Garner