Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 California opinions name it 1 courts 1977–2026 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Glendale Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Marina View Heights Development Co.green2 sentences2026Co. (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 101, 155 [“the protection afforded the guarantor by the Gradsky rule may be expressly waived”].) Here, Garnicki argues the guaranty agreement’s waiver was ineffective, relying upon Cathay Bank v. Lee, supra, 14 Cal.App.4th 1533 . 1993Co. (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 101, 155 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 802 ] (conclusory comment that completion guarantee agreement “contained an express contractual waiver of the Gradsky defense”); Union Bank v. Brummell (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d 836, 839 [ 75 Cal.Rptr. 234 ] (conclusory statement that after examination of guaranty instrument, it contained no explicit waiver of “rights delineated in Gradsky"). 7 Hetland, California Real Estate Secured Transactions (Cont.Ed.Bar 1970) section 6.54, page 321. 8 In its brief, Cathay Bank charitably speculates that the official reporter or the printer in Mariners omitted | 2 | 2 |
Mariners Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Neilgreen2 sentences1977(Mariners Sav. & Loan Assn. v. Neil, 22 Cal.App.3d 232, 235-236 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 238 , 49 A.L.R.3d 549 ]; Hetland, Secured Real Estate Transactions (Cont.Ed.Bar 1974) pp. 232-233.) In the instant case, the completion guarantee agreement which Misbin and Holmes executed contained an express contractual waiver of the Gradsky defense. 1977(Mariners Sav. & Loan Assn. v. Neil, 22 Cal.App.3d 232, 235-236 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 238 , 49 A.L.R.3d 549 ]; Hetland, Secured Real Estate Transactions (Cont.Ed.Bar 1974) pp. 232-233.) In the instant case, the completion guarantee agreement which Misbin and Holmes executed contained an express contractual waiver of the Gradsky defense. | 1 | 3 |
Cathay Bank v. Leegreen2 sentences2026(Cathay Bank v. Lee (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1533, 1535 (Cathay Bank) [“The dispositive issue before us is whether Lee explicitly waived what might be called the ‘Gradsky defense’ ”]; see also CADC/RADC Venture 2011-1 LLC v. Bradley (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 775, 784 [“a lender may recover a deficiency judgment from a guarantor who waives his or her antideficiency protections”]; Glendale Fed. 2026Co. (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 101, 155 [“the protection afforded the guarantor by the Gradsky rule may be expressly waived”].) Here, Garnicki argues the guaranty agreement’s waiver was ineffective, relying upon Cathay Bank v. Lee, supra, 14 Cal.App.4th 1533 . | 1 | 2 |
River Bank America v. Dillergreen2 sentences2026(Cathay Bank, at pp. 1536, 1539.) Unfortunately for Garnicki, the Legislature enacted Civil Code section 2856 in response to Cathay Bank’s “stringent requirements on the wording and interpretation of a guarantor’s waiver of a defense arising from the principal’s rights under the antideficiency statutes.” (Gramercy, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at p. 911 ; accord, River Bank America v. Diller (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1400, 1418 [“In apparent response to Cathay Bank’s strict holding, the Legislature enacted [Civil Code] section 2856”]; WRI Opportunity Loans II, LLC v. Cooper (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 525, 5 2026(Cathay Bank, at pp. 1536, 1539.) Unfortunately for Garnicki, the Legislature enacted Civil Code section 2856 in response to Cathay Bank’s “stringent requirements on the wording and interpretation of a guarantor’s waiver of a defense arising from the principal’s rights under the antideficiency statutes.” (Gramercy, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at p. 911 ; accord, River Bank America v. Diller (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1400, 1418 [“In apparent response to Cathay Bank’s strict holding, the Legislature enacted [Civil Code] section 2856”]; WRI Opportunity Loans II, LLC v. Cooper (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 525, 5 | 1 | 1 |
Gramercy Investment Trust v. Lakemont Homes Nevada, Inc.green2 sentences2026(See, e.g., Gramercy, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at p. 912 [waiver of “all rights and defenses arising out of an election of remedies by the creditor” was “clear” and “unequivocal” waiver of antideficiency protections].) Accordingly, the trial court erred in concluding the Gradsky defense barred recovery from Garnicki under the settlement agreement.3 We therefore remand the matter to the trial court with instructions to vacate its judgment and reconsider Temple View’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement in light of our holding that the Gradsky defense does not shield Garnicki from a deficie 2026(See, e.g., Gramercy, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at p. 912 [waiver of “all rights and defenses arising out of an election of remedies by the creditor” was “clear” and “unequivocal” waiver of antideficiency protections].) Accordingly, the trial court erred in concluding the Gradsky defense barred recovery from Garnicki under the settlement agreement.3 We therefore remand the matter to the trial court with instructions to vacate its judgment and reconsider Temple View’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement in light of our holding that the Gradsky defense does not shield Garnicki from a deficie | 1 | 1 |
California Bank & Trust v. DelPontigreen2 sentences2026(Cathay Bank, at pp. 1536, 1539.) Unfortunately for Garnicki, the Legislature enacted Civil Code section 2856 in response to Cathay Bank’s “stringent requirements on the wording and interpretation of a guarantor’s waiver of a defense arising from the principal’s rights under the antideficiency statutes.” (Gramercy, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at p. 911 ; accord, River Bank America v. Diller (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1400, 1418 [“In apparent response to Cathay Bank’s strict holding, the Legislature enacted [Civil Code] section 2856”]; WRI Opportunity Loans II, LLC v. Cooper (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 525, 5 2026(Cathay Bank, at pp. 1536, 1539.) Unfortunately for Garnicki, the Legislature enacted Civil Code section 2856 in response to Cathay Bank’s “stringent requirements on the wording and interpretation of a guarantor’s waiver of a defense arising from the principal’s rights under the antideficiency statutes.” (Gramercy, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at p. 911 ; accord, River Bank America v. Diller (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1400, 1418 [“In apparent response to Cathay Bank’s strict holding, the Legislature enacted [Civil Code] section 2856”]; WRI Opportunity Loans II, LLC v. Cooper (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 525, 5 | 1 | 1 |
LSREF2 Clover Property 4, LLC v. Festival Retail Fund 1, LPgreen2 sentences2026(LSREF2 Clover Property 4, supra, 3 Cal.App.5th at p. 1076 [“ ‘interpretation of a writing involves a question of law for de novo review by the appellate court’ ”].) 6 California’s antideficiency laws (Code Civ. 2026(LSREF2 Clover Property 4, supra, 3 Cal.App.5th at p. 1076 [“ ‘interpretation of a writing involves a question of law for de novo review by the appellate court’ ”].) 6 California’s antideficiency laws (Code Civ. | 1 | 1 |
J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fairgreen2 sentences2026Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 974, 984 [“ ‘The trial court’s factual findings on a motion to enforce a settlement . . . “will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence” ’ ”].) Here, however, whether the guaranty agreement waived the Gradsky defense is a matter of contract interpretation and therefore a question of law, not fact. 2026Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 974, 984 [“ ‘The trial court’s factual findings on a motion to enforce a settlement . . . “will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence” ’ ”].) Here, however, whether the guaranty agreement waived the Gradsky defense is a matter of contract interpretation and therefore a question of law, not fact. | 1 | 1 |
CADC/RADC Venture 2011-1 LLC v. Bradleygreen2 sentences2026(Cathay Bank v. Lee (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1533, 1535 (Cathay Bank) [“The dispositive issue before us is whether Lee explicitly waived what might be called the ‘Gradsky defense’ ”]; see also CADC/RADC Venture 2011-1 LLC v. Bradley (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 775, 784 [“a lender may recover a deficiency judgment from a guarantor who waives his or her antideficiency protections”]; Glendale Fed. 2026(Cathay Bank v. Lee (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1533, 1535 (Cathay Bank) [“The dispositive issue before us is whether Lee explicitly waived what might be called the ‘Gradsky defense’ ”]; see also CADC/RADC Venture 2011-1 LLC v. Bradley (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 775, 784 [“a lender may recover a deficiency judgment from a guarantor who waives his or her antideficiency protections”]; Glendale Fed. | 1 | 1 |
Union Bank v. Brummellgreen2 sentences1993Co. (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 101, 155 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 802 ] (conclusory comment that completion guarantee agreement “contained an express contractual waiver of the Gradsky defense”); Union Bank v. Brummell (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d 836, 839 [ 75 Cal.Rptr. 234 ] (conclusory statement that after examination of guaranty instrument, it contained no explicit waiver of “rights delineated in Gradsky"). 7 Hetland, California Real Estate Secured Transactions (Cont.Ed.Bar 1970) section 6.54, page 321. 8 In its brief, Cathay Bank charitably speculates that the official reporter or the printer in Mariners omitted 1993Co. (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 101, 155 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 802 ] (conclusory comment that completion guarantee agreement “contained an express contractual waiver of the Gradsky defense”); Union Bank v. Brummell (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d 836, 839 [ 75 Cal.Rptr. 234 ] (conclusory statement that after examination of guaranty instrument, it contained no explicit waiver of “rights delineated in Gradsky"). 7 Hetland, California Real Estate Secured Transactions (Cont.Ed.Bar 1970) section 6.54, page 321. 8 In its brief, Cathay Bank charitably speculates that the official reporter or the printer in Mariners omitted | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Union Bank v. Gradsky
green
2 sentences1995The Gradsky defense is based on Union Bank v. Gradsky (1968) 265 Cal.App.2d 40 [ 71 Cal.Rptr. 64 ]. 1995The Gradsky defense is based on Union Bank v. Gradsky (1968) 265 Cal.App.2d 40 [ 71 Cal.Rptr. 64 ]. | 2 | 1993–1995 |
WRI Opportunity Loans II, LLC v. Cooper
green
2 sentences2026(Cathay Bank, at pp. 1536, 1539.) Unfortunately for Garnicki, the Legislature enacted Civil Code section 2856 in response to Cathay Bank’s “stringent requirements on the wording and interpretation of a guarantor’s waiver of a defense arising from the principal’s rights under the antideficiency statutes.” (Gramercy, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at p. 911 ; accord, River Bank America v. Diller (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1400, 1418 [“In apparent response to Cathay Bank’s strict holding, the Legislature enacted [Civil Code] section 2856”]; WRI Opportunity Loans II, LLC v. Cooper (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 525, 5 2026(Cathay Bank, at pp. 1536, 1539.) Unfortunately for Garnicki, the Legislature enacted Civil Code section 2856 in response to Cathay Bank’s “stringent requirements on the wording and interpretation of a guarantor’s waiver of a defense arising from the principal’s rights under the antideficiency statutes.” (Gramercy, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at p. 911 ; accord, River Bank America v. Diller (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1400, 1418 [“In apparent response to Cathay Bank’s strict holding, the Legislature enacted [Civil Code] section 2856”]; WRI Opportunity Loans II, LLC v. Cooper (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 525, 5 | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Bloom v. Bender
green
2 sentences1995(Cathay Bank v. Lee, supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at p. 1537 .) The Cathay Bank court did not look to other cases—such as Bloom, supra, 48 Cal.2d 793—which considered the waiver of other statutory surety defenses. 1995(Cathay Bank v. Lee, supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at p. 1537 .) The Cathay Bank court did not look to other cases—such as Bloom, supra, 48 Cal.2d 793—which considered the waiver of other statutory surety defenses. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Consolidated Capital Income Trust v. Khaloghli
green
2 sentences1993(See generally Consolidated Capital Income Trust v. Khaloghli, supra, 183 Cal.App.3d 107 .) We confirmed at oral argument that the bank did not have any facts (beyond, of course, the guaranty itself) on which to base such a waiver. 1993(See generally Consolidated Capital Income Trust v. Khaloghli, supra, 183 Cal.App.3d 107 .) We confirmed at oral argument that the bank did not have any facts (beyond, of course, the guaranty itself) on which to base such a waiver. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Lean v. Geagan
green
2 sentences1993Section 580, which addresses the relief available on default judgments, has nothing to do with the Gradsky defense. 9 “It is well settled that any ambiguity in a contract of guaranty, concerning the liability of the guarantor, will be resolved in favor of protecting the creditor to the extent of the sum named therein; in other words, that such a provision will be construed as a limitation upon the amount of the guarantor’s liability rather than as a condition upon which any liability whatever attaches.” ( 20 Cal.App. at p. 262 .) 1993Section 580, which addresses the relief available on default judgments, has nothing to do with the Gradsky defense. 9 “It is well settled that any ambiguity in a contract of guaranty, concerning the liability of the guarantor, will be resolved in favor of protecting the creditor to the extent of the sum named therein; in other words, that such a provision will be construed as a limitation upon the amount of the guarantor’s liability rather than as a condition upon which any liability whatever attaches.” ( 20 Cal.App. at p. 262 .) | 1 | 1993–1993 |