Gupta v. Patil CA1/1
Respondent Sanchita Gupta sued appellant Gautam Patil after Patil failed to repay money owed under a promissory note. Patil proceeded without an attorney. Shortly before trial, the trial court denied Patil’s motion to amend his answer to allege that the action was barred by Code of Civil Procedure section 726, subdivision (a) (section 726(a)), which generally governs actions brought to recover debts secured by a mortgage.1 The court sub
Comments on Gupta v. Patil CA1/1