Cal. Bank & Trust v. Lawlor
Defendants and appellants appeal from the deficiency judgments the trial court entered after it granted plaintiff and respondent’s motions for summary adjudication on their breach of guaranty claims.[1] In opposing those motions, Defendants did not dispute any of the facts offered to establish the underlying loans, the guaranties Defendants signed, the loan defaults, Defendants’ refusal to pay under the guaranties, or the amounts due and owing after California B&T nonjudicially foreclosed on the real property security for the loans. Instead, Defendants argued their close relationship with the borrowers made Defendants primary obligors on the loans rather than true guarantors, and therefore California’s antideficiency law prevented California B&T from obtaining deficiency judgments against Defendants. In granting the summary adjudication motions, however, the trial court refused to consider Defendants’ “sham guaranty†defense because Defendants failed to allege it as an affirmative defense in their answers.
Comments on Cal. Bank & Trust v. Lawlor