Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
In 2004, Ps sold a house to Staggs in exchange for a promissory note secured by a trust deed. In April 2006, Staggs was in default, and Ps started foreclosure proceedings. Staggs assigned all of his interest in the property to D, subject to the original promissory note and trust deed in favor of Ps. D cured the existing defaults. D took possession of the property in June 2007 and began extensive renovations, including replacing the roof, windows, doors, gutters, exterior railings, and electrical wiring; repairing the sewer and water connections; leveling the foundation; closing holes in the crawl space beneath the house; and refinishing and carpeting the floors. In October and November 2007, P observed piles of construction debris and garbage on the property. Ps sent D a certified letter asking him to clean up the property; D refused to accept the letter, and it was returned to Ps. At that point, they turned the matter over to their attorney, Ozias. On November 15, 2007, Ozias wrote a letter to D to clean up the property within 30 days to avoid default. Ozias relied on a provision in the trust deed stating that the grantor agrees '[t]o protect, preserve, and maintain the property in good condition and repair' and 'not to commit or permit any waste of said property.' To avoid default, D also had to pay the additional attorney fees that Ps had incurred in the process of enforcing compliance-that is, the attorney fees incurred in demanding that D pay attorney fees. D cleaned up the property. Ozias then sent an e-mail demanding $460.75 for attorney fees. D refused to pay despite numerous demand letters. D paid off the promissory note in January 2009 but refused to pay attorney fees. The reconveyance of the property to D was not recorded. In June 2009, Ps filed this action to foreclose on the trust deed, alleging that defendant was in default for his failure to pay attorney fees and costs, which, by then, amounted to $2,054.04. D argued that the property was in very bad condition when he took possession in 2007 and that the condition of the property a few months later when Ps and Ozias demanded a clean-up was the normal byproduct of the renovation work. D argued that Ozias's fees were for her legal advice and services to Ps, not fees incurred as an attorney or trustee enforcing the trust deed. The trial court ruled that D assumed Staggs's interest and obligations under the 2004 trust deed. The court ruled for Ps and D appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co