Sattler v. Van Natta
| Decision Date | 24 September 1953 |
| Citation | 260 P.2d 982,120 Cal.App.2d 349 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | SATTLER et al. v. VAN NATTA et al. Civ. 19464. |
Thomas G. Neusom, Los Angeles, for appellants.
Vincent Scott, Los Angeles, for respondent Jeanette R. Watson.
George C. Woods, Los Angeles, and Earl E. Howard, Hollywood, for respondents Kay C. Van Natta and Ethel L. Van Natta.
Swanwick, Donnelly & Proudfit, Donald O. Melton, Los Angeles, for respondent California Trust Co.
Plaintiffs appeal from an adverse judgment following an order puporting to grant motion of defendants for nonsuit.
The complaint was filed on October 10, 1951. It set out, in the first cause of action that plaintiffs are husband and wife; that defendants Watson owned certain real property which they sold to plaintiffs in the year 1947; that plaintiffs purchased the property through an escrow at a bank for the total sale price of $8,500; that they purchased it through a loan under the Servicemen's Readjustment Act, 38 U.S.C.A. § 694a, and the Veterans' Administration appraised the property at $8,500; that the agreement was that the sale price of the property was $8,500, $1,300 cash and a loan of $7,200; that at the time of the sale defendants Watson were buying some property from defendants Van Natta and knew about plaintiffs' deal; that defendant Stone, real estate broker, asked plaintiffs to sign necessary additional papers regarding insurance and tax and that he would complete all forms and turn them over to the escrow officer; that defendants Watson, Van Natta and Stone had conspired to obtain, and by fraud and artific, did secure plaintiffs' signatures to a note and trust deed for $2,000, in violation of title 38 of U.S.C.A.; that plaintiffs had no knowledge of the note and second trust deed until the escrow was closed and plaintiffs were in possession of the property when they received a payment book in the mail directing that payment be made; that under threat of foreclosure by defendants Van Natta and statement by Stone that it was just a mixup and that the note and trust deed were legal and that he would clear the matter up, plaintiffs paid interest but no principal for two and a half years up to February, 1950, when the Veterans' Administrator told them not to make further payment. In their second cause of action plaintiffs realleged substantially the same as the first cause of action and alleged that defendants were working in concert to evade 38 U.S.C.A. § 694a and fixed the amount of interest paid on the note and trust at $330; and in their third cause of action added that the Van Nattas and defendant California Trust Company were foreclosing on the trust deed. They asked judgment declaring the note void, enjoining foreclosure of the second trust deed and return of the money paid as interest.
Defendant Jeanette R. Watson, whose husband, defendant Claude E. Watson, had died, admitted the transaction, denied fraud or conspiracy, and alleged that the total purchase price was not $8,500, but was $10,500, the extra $2,000 being paid out of escrow by the note and second trust deed. She denied knowledge that the property was being purchased with a Veteran's loan, that plaintiffs knew that it was being so financed and kept it from defendant and should now be estopped to claim relief. She later filed an amendment to her answer setting up the defense that the action was barred by sections 337, 338 and 343 of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to limitation of actions.
Defendants Van Natta in their answer denied allegations of the complaint except that they received the note and trust deed and are proceeding to foreclose the latter. They added an amendment pleading the statute of limitation.
Defendant California Trust Co. answered by denying any knowledge of the acts of the other parties or any participation therein. All parties seem to agree that it is merely a disinterested trustee under the second trust deed.
Defendant Frank Stone is deceased and no answer was filed on his behalf.
At the trial Mrs. Watson testified that the property was being sold for $10,500, that defendant Stone had been employed by her to sell the house, that $2,000 was to be paid out of escrow; that she knew Mr. Sattler was a veteran and was applying for a Veteran's loan and also knew at the time she signed escrow instructions that the appraiser had appraised the property at $8,500; that Mr. Van Natta knew that she was getting the $2,000 out of escrow, that the sale price was $10,500, and that she talked with Mr. Van Natta about it before the escrow instructions were signed.
Mr. Van Natta testified that he did not discuss the note and second trust deed with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jacobson v. Greaves
...War II.' Cf. also Perkins v. Hilton, 329 Mass. 291, 107 N.E.2d 822, 33 A.L.R.2d 1281 (Sup.Jud.Ct.1952); Sattler v. Van Natta 120 Cal.App.2d 349, 260 P.2d 982 (Dist.Ct.App.1953); Young v. Hampton, supra. The policy announced in these decisions of affording protection of the law to those whom......
-
Lala v. Maiorana
...entirely void and wholly unenforceable (Young v. Hampton, 36 Cal.2d 799, 805-806, 228 P.2d 1, 19 A.L.R.2d 830; Sattler v. Van Natta, 120 Cal.App.2d 349, 352, 260 P.2d 982). To the same effect is Schalow v. Schalow, 163 Cal.App.2d 448, 329 P.2d 592, which involved the purchase of a home purs......
-
Gay v. Broder
...the purpose of the act is defeated." (Italics added.) The doctrine of Young v. Hampton, supra, was followed in Sattler v. Van Natta (1953) 120 Cal.App.2d 349, 260 P.2d 982, where the plaintiffs sued to have a note secured by a second deed of trust declared void, the note representing a sum ......
-
Lewis v. Wainscott
...802-804, 228 P.2d 1, 19 A.L.R.2d 830; Pitts v. Highland Construction Co., 115 Cal.App.2d 206, 209-210, 252 P.2d 14; Sattler v. Van Natta, 120 Cal.App.2d 349, 260 P.2d 982. See also Rosenblum v. Corodas, 119 Cal.App.2d 802, 260 P.2d In the cases last cited it was also held that although a ve......