Griffin v. Porter

California Court of Appeal Aug 31, 1942 No. Civ. 13435Published

Before: Drapeau

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court's valuation of the converted property was supported by substantial evidence, but that the defendant's claimed offset for a deficiency judgment was barred by the statute of limitations.

Issues

Whether there was substantial evidence to support the trial court's valuation of the converted personal property.
Whether the defendant's claim for an offset based on a deficiency from a trust deed sale was barred by the statute of limitations.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“There is, therefore, substantial evidence in the record to support the finding by the trial court as to value of the property converted.”

“In 1933, section 337 of the Code of Civil Procedure was amended limiting the time to bring action for a deficiency judgment upon a sale under a trust deed to not more than three months after the date of the sale.”

“Judgment is reversed and cause remanded to the trial court with instructions to enter judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $800.”

DRAPEAU, J. pro tem.

In this action for conversion of personal property, the trial court found the defendant had converted the property without lawful right so to do, and fixed plaintiff’s damages at $800. The court then found $732.34 due defendant from plaintiff as an offset growing out

[255]

of a sale under a deed of trust. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff for $67.66, with costs for defendant. Plaintiff appeals from an order of the trial court denying a motion under section 663 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside and vacate the judgment above referred to and to substitute another and different judgment.

Plaintiff contends that the market value of the personal property was $4,000, which should have been the amount of the judgment, and that the court was in error in finding the offset due from plaintiff to defendant. The personal property involved consisted of furniture and furnishings of a one-story bungalow court.

In a duly settled bill of exceptions appears the following epitome of testimony before the court in respect to the value of the furnishings: November 5, 1935, the plaintiff paid $3,500 for the furnishings and shortly thereafter expended $1,500 in improving the same and in furnishing a new apartment ; at the time of the conversion many of the items were no longer on the premises; all of the personal property was in poor condition and some of it unusable; and all of it was sold for $300. The furnishings were under constant and hard usage by subtenants of the court units, and were used up and wore out rapidly. In the opinion of one witness who bought them, they were worth not more than $200.

There is, therefore, substantial evidence in the record to support the finding by the trial court as to value of the property converted.

(Landegren

Quilici,

52 Cal. App. (2d) 213 [126 P. (2d) 141], and cases therein cited.)

We are unable to agree with that portion of the judgment which permitted the defendant to offset $732.34 against the value of the personal property. The offset thus claimed grows out of the following circumstances: When the action was commenced there were two defendants, one a lady, who was the owner of a promissory note secured by a trust deed upon the premises where the furnishings in question were

Griffin v. Porter

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief