Any express agreement made or entered into by a borrower at the time of or in connection with the making of or renewing of any loan secured by a deed of trust, mortgage or other instrument creating a lien on real property, whereby the borrower agrees to waive the rights, or privileges conferred upon the borrower by Sections 2924, 2924b, or 2924c of the Civil Code or by Sections 580a or 726 of the Code of Civil Procedure, shall be void and of no effect. The provisions of this section shall not apply to any deed of trust, mortgage, or other liens given to secure the payment of bonds or other evidences of indebtedness authorized or permitted to be issued by the Commissioner of Financial Protection and Innovation, or made by a public utility subject to the provisions of the Public Utilities Act.
Notes of Decisions
Nungaray v. Litton Loan Servicing, LP, 200 Cal. App. 4th 1499 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011).
“Moreover, Civil Code section 2953 does not preclude an agreement between a borrower and a lender regarding a forbearance of foreclosure to negotiate a loan modification.”
Torrey Pines Bank v. Hoffman, 231 Cal. App. 3d 308 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991).
“) 13 Civil Code section 2953 provides, in pertinent part: “Any express agreement made or entered into by a borrower at the time of or in connection with the making of or renewing of any loan secured by a deed of trust, mortgage or other instrument creating a lien on real…”
Cadle Co. v. Harvey, 83 Cal. App. 4th 927 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000).
“2d 463 ]; Civ. Code, § 2953) because the antideficiency legislation was established for a public reason and cannot be contravened by a private agreement.”
Williams v. Reed, 307 P.2d 353 (Cal. 1957).
““Moreover, plaintiff’s former action against Reed was upon an agreement susceptible to the interpretation that Reed confessed judgment while waiving as to himself the benefit of prior resort to the mortgage security and yet keeping the *67 mortgage alive and available for the…”
Altman v. McCollum, 236 P.2d 914 (Cal. App. Dep’t Super. Ct. 1951).
“” (Civ. Code, § 2953, enacted 1937.) Such a waiver is against public policy.”
Williams v. Reed, 248 P.2d 147 (Cal. Ct. App. 1952).
“Moreover, plaintiff’s former action against Reed was upon an agreement susceptible to the interpretation that Reed confessed judgment while waiving as to himself the benefit of prior resort to the mortgage security and yet keeping the mortgage alive and available for the benefit…”
Kaiser Indus. Corp. v. Taylor, 17 Cal. App. 3d 346 (Cal. Ct. App. 1971).
“(Civ. Code, § 2953.) To allow a creditor to avoid the limitation by a device which gives the creditor the advantage of a legal mortgage would seem to be clearly contrary to the legislative intent expressed in the above code sections.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.