section as an affirmative defense in California

1990If the debtor does not raise the section as an affirmative defense, he may still invoke it as a sanction against the creditor on the basis that the latter by not foreclosing on the security in the action brought to enforce the debt, has made an election of remedies and waived the security." ( Walker v. Community Bank, supra, 10 Cal.3d 729, 733-734 , quoting Roseleaf Corp. v. Chierighino (1963) 59 Cal.2d 35, 38-39 [ 27 Cal. Rptr. 873 , 378 P.2d 97 ] [citations omitted]; see generally Comment, What is an Action for Purposes of Cal. Civil Procedure Code Section 726? *998 (1988) 25 San Diego L.Rev

1990If the debtor does not raise the section as an affirmative defense, he may still invoke it as a sanction against the creditor on the basis that the latter by not foreclosing on the security in the action brought to enforce the debt, has made an election of remedies and waived the security." ( Walker v. Community Bank, supra, 10 Cal.3d 729, 733-734 , quoting Roseleaf Corp. v. Chierighino (1963) 59 Cal.2d 35, 38-39 [ 27 Cal. Rptr. 873 , 378 P.2d 97 ] [citations omitted]; see generally Comment, What is an Action for Purposes of Cal. Civil Procedure Code Section 726? *998 (1988) 25 San Diego L.Rev

1990A. Definition of "action" (1c) Whether the bank's set off was an "action" is answered by section 22, which states, "An action is an ordinary proceeding in a court of justice by which one party prosecutes another for the declaration, enforcement, or protection of a right, the redress or prevention of a wrong, or the punishment of a public offense." (Italics added.) (5) "`When a statute prescribes the meaning to be given to particular terms used by it, that meaning is generally binding on the courts.'" ( Great Lakes Properties, Inc. v. City of El Segundo (1977) 19 Cal.3d 152, 156 [ 137 Cal. Rptr

1990A. Definition of "action" (1c) Whether the bank's set off was an "action" is answered by section 22, which states, "An action is an ordinary proceeding in a court of justice by which one party prosecutes another for the declaration, enforcement, or protection of a right, the redress or prevention of a wrong, or the punishment of a public offense." (Italics added.) (5) "`When a statute prescribes the meaning to be given to particular terms used by it, that meaning is generally binding on the courts.'" ( Great Lakes Properties, Inc. v. City of El Segundo (1977) 19 Cal.3d 152, 156 [ 137 Cal. Rptr

1990A. Definition of "action" (1c) Whether the bank's set off was an "action" is answered by section 22, which states, "An action is an ordinary proceeding in a court of justice by which one party prosecutes another for the declaration, enforcement, or protection of a right, the redress or prevention of a wrong, or the punishment of a public offense." (Italics added.) (5) "`When a statute prescribes the meaning to be given to particular terms used by it, that meaning is generally binding on the courts.'" ( Great Lakes Properties, Inc. v. City of El Segundo (1977) 19 Cal.3d 152, 156 [ 137 Cal. Rptr

1990A. Definition of "action" (1c) Whether the bank's set off was an "action" is answered by section 22, which states, "An action is an ordinary proceeding in a court of justice by which one party prosecutes another for the declaration, enforcement, or protection of a right, the redress or prevention of a wrong, or the punishment of a public offense." (Italics added.) (5) "`When a statute prescribes the meaning to be given to particular terms used by it, that meaning is generally binding on the courts.'" ( Great Lakes Properties, Inc. v. City of El Segundo (1977) 19 Cal.3d 152, 156 [ 137 Cal. Rptr

1987(Walker v. Community Bank, supra, 10 Cal.3d at pp. 735-736; Bank of America v. Daily, supra, 152 Cal. App.3d at p. 773.) This statutory rule protects the debtor against multiplicity of suits and compels competitive bidding to test the value of the security for the debt.

1984Civil Code section 3517 states that "No one can take advantage of his own wrong." She seeks to use this section as an affirmative defense against Robert's motion for visitation and custody. (2) The determination that a party has unclean hands under this second Civil Code section is also a matter of judicial discretion. ( Pon v. Wittman (1905) 147 Cal. 280 [ 81 P. 984 ].) And even where a finding of unclean hands is factually established, a court may still refuse to apply the doctrine if a manifest injustice will result. ( Womack v. Womack (1966) 242 Cal. App.2d 572, 577 [ 51 Cal. Rptr. 668 ].)

1984Civil Code section 3517 states that "No one can take advantage of his own wrong." She seeks to use this section as an affirmative defense against Robert's motion for visitation and custody. (2) The determination that a party has unclean hands under this second Civil Code section is also a matter of judicial discretion. ( Pon v. Wittman (1905) 147 Cal. 280 [ 81 P. 984 ].) And even where a finding of unclean hands is factually established, a court may still refuse to apply the doctrine if a manifest injustice will result. ( Womack v. Womack (1966) 242 Cal. App.2d 572, 577 [ 51 Cal. Rptr. 668 ].)

1974(Salter v. Ulrich, supra, 22 Cal.2d 263, 267; Hartman v. Smith (1963) 219 Cal.App.2d 415, 417 [ 33 Cal.Rptr. 147 ].) If the debtor does not raise the section as an affirmative defense, he may still invoke it as a sanction against the creditor on the basis that the latter by not foreclosing on the security in the action brought to enforce the debt, has made an election of remedies and waived the security.

1974(Salter v. Ulrich, supra, 22 Cal.2d 263, 267; Hartman v. Smith (1963) 219 Cal.App.2d 415, 417 [ 33 Cal.Rptr. 147 ].) If the debtor does not raise the section as an affirmative defense, he may still invoke it as a sanction against the creditor on the basis that the latter by not foreclosing on the security in the action brought to enforce the debt, has made an election of remedies and waived the security.

1974(Salter v. Ulrich, supra, 22 Cal.2d 263, 267; Hartman v. Smith (1963) 219 Cal.App.2d 415, 417 [ 33 Cal.Rptr. 147 ].) If the debtor does not raise the section as an affirmative defense, he may still invoke it as a sanction against the creditor on the basis that the latter by not foreclosing on the security in the action brought to enforce the debt, has made an election of remedies and waived the security.

1974(Salter v. Ulrich, supra, 22 Cal.2d 263, 267; Hartman v. Smith (1963) 219 Cal.App.2d 415, 417 [ 33 Cal.Rptr. 147 ].) If the debtor does not raise the section as an affirmative defense, he may still invoke it as a sanction against the creditor on the basis that the latter by not foreclosing on the security in the action brought to enforce the debt, has made an election of remedies and waived the security.

1974(Hall v. Arnott (1889) 80 Cal. 348, 354 [ 22 P. 200 ]; James v. P.C.S.

1974(Hall v. Arnott (1889) 80 Cal. 348, 354 [ 22 P. 200 ]; James v. P.C.S.