Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California)

Posted by Anne Tyner on September 21st, 2021

Procedural Posture
Defendant debtor sought review of a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California), which found in favor of plaintiff assignee in his action to recover upon a loan.

Overview
The lender agreed to raise funds for the debtor in exchange for the execution of a mortgage by the debtor on a certain paint factory and machinery in favor of the lender. The mortgage was not executed but the lender agreed to advance more funds after the co-lender proved unable to raise her share. The lender demanded that the debtor execute a note or give the mortgage for so much as had been advanced by her, but the debtor refused because he claimed that under the verbal understanding reached between the two, he was not obliged to give such a note or security because the entire amount had not been advanced. The trial court entered a judgment awarding the assignee the amount of the loan against the debtor, from which the debtor sought review. The court was of the opinion that the debtor was bound in equity to return the funds advanced if he was unwilling to give security therefor because the facts made out a clear case in favor of the assignee for money had and received. The court adjudged that the judgment was based upon a contract implied by law that the debtor should return the funds in his possession because he had abandoned the loan agreement.

Outcome
The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the assignor in his action against the debtor to recover on a loan.

Procedural Posture
Plaintiff, a religious and medical counselor, sued defendant homeowners association (HOA), asserting claims for disability and religious discrimination in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and declaratory relief. The Riverside County Superior Court, California, denied plaintiff\'s motion for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff appealed.

Overview
Plaintiff, who relocated his counseling practice to his home allegedly due to illness, sought the preliminary injunction to stop the HOA from preventing his patients from entering the HOA\'s gates pending the resolution of plaintiff\'s complaint. Plaintiff admitted that he ran a business out of his home. The instant court concluded that plaintiff was unlikely to prevail on the merits of the case at trial in part because plaintiff\'s arguments were without merit and in part because they were not well made according to the established standards of appellate practice. Plaintiff failed to specify what the HOA was required to do under the FEHA to accommodate him. The conduct of a home business required both the approval of the HOA and the city in which it was located, but plaintiff did not receive permission from either the city or the HOA until after he received a notice of violation from the HOA. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that plaintiff could not establish a probability of success on the merits because he was running a home business in direct violation of the HOA\'s rules and regulations.

Outcome
The trial court\'s ruling denying plaintiff\'s motion for a preliminary injunction was affirmed.