Herlong-Sierra Homes, Inc., a Corporation v. United States
Cases that cite this one
9 later published cases cite this decision. The 8 that cite it most often are listed here.
- United States v. Stadium Apartments, Inc. (9th Cir. 1970)
- United States v. Golden Acres, Inc. (United States District Court for the District of Delaware 1988)
- United States v. Glen O. Allgeyer and Jean M. Allgeyer (9th Cir. 1972)
- United States v. Mackenzie (District Court, D. Nevada 1971)
- United States v. Skipper Smith's Marina, Inc. (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 1968)
- Branden v. Driver (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 1968)
- United States v. Merrick Sponsor Corp. (District Court, E.D. New York 1968)
- United States v. Wells (5th Cir. 1968)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
This is an appeal from a judgment in an action by the United States to foreclose a deed of trust and chattel mortgage executed by appellant to secure a loan insured by the Federal Housing Administration under the authority of Title VIII of the National Housing Act, 12 U.S.C.A. § 1748b, in connection with the construction of a rental housing project for military and civilian personnel at the Sierra Ordnance Depot in Lassen County, California. An opinion of this court in related litigation is reported at Builders Corporation of America v. United States, 9 Cir., 320 F.2d 425.
Appellant contends (1) that appellee is precluded from recovery because appel-lee’s wrongful conduct prevented appellant from making the payments due on the note, and (2) that a deficiency judgment was barred by section 580b of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Both contentions are sufficiently answered by the district court in its memorandum opinion of June 8, 1964. As to the second contention, see also United States v. Shimer, 367 U.S. 374, 81 S.Ct. 1554, 6 L.Ed.2d 908 (1961); United States v. Rossi, 342 F.2d 505 (9th Cir. 1965).
Appellant also argues that the district court should have made provision in the judgment against acceptance of an excessively low bid at foreclosure sale. It does not appear from the record before us that this issue was raised in the district court. In any event, we agree with appellee that “all that is before the Court now is the Judgment of Foreclosure and Order of Sale, not the sale itself.” Nothing that the district court or this court has held would preclude the appellee from seeking relief in the district court on a showing that the high bid at the foreclosure sale was unreasonably low. Cf. Magnolia Springs Apartments, Inc. v. United States, 323 F.2d 726 (5th Cir. 1963).
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.