Bechtel v. Cake

California Court of Appeal May 3, 1939 No. Civ. 5941Published

Before: Tuttle

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a trial court's written opinion cannot be used to impeach its formal findings of fact, and that the evidence in the record sufficiently supported the judgment.

Issues

Whether a trial court's written opinion can be used to impeach its formal findings of fact.
Whether the evidence supports the trial court's findings regarding the validity of the sale and the amount of the judgment.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“we cannot consider these written opinions in determining whether or not the findings are sufficiently supported by the evidence.”

“The record contains ample evidence to support the amount of the judgment as found by the trial court.”

TUTTLE, J.

This is an action brought by respondent, as assignee of Bank of America, to recover a deficiency after a sale under a deed of trust. Judgment was entered against appellants in the sum of $11,878.85. The appeal is taken from the judgment.

[517]

The sole ground urged for reversal in the opening brief is the asserted invalidity of the sale. The trial court found all necessary facts to constitute a valid and legal sale, and we find that there is ample evidence in the record to support such findings. Notwithstanding this, appellants rely upon the opinion of the trial court, which admittedly disposes of the case upon the ground that the trust deed contains a recital that it “shall be conclusive of all matters and facts affecting the regularity and validity of the sale ’ ’. The entire opening brief of appellants is devoted to the effect of such such recital. The precise position taken by appellants is indicated clearly in the following excerpt from their opening brief:

“In the instant case, in the first instance, a suit was filed for a deficiency judgment after a purported sale under a deed of trust. The court, in its opinion, stated that proof of the absence of a sale preponderated in favor of defendants, but, nevertheless, gave judgment to the plaintiff for the deficiency, holding, as heretofore pointed out in the discussion of the court, that the defendants precluded themselves from relying upon such a defense by reason of the provisions contained in the trust deed as to the eonclusiveness of the recitals of the trustee’s deed. Therefore, the crux of the entire appeal is whether or not the defendants in this action are conclusively bound by the recitals in the trustee’s deed.”

No attempt whatever is made in that brief to point out wherein the evidence is insufficient to support the judgment. In other words, an attempt is made to use the opinion of the trial court for the purpose of impeaching the findings. Numerous cases hold that this cannot be done. Typical of these is

Goldner

Spencer,

163 Cal. 317 [125 Pac. 347], where the following language is used:

Bechtel v. Cake

AI Brief

TUTTLE, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief