# Monterey S.P. Partnership v. W. L. Bangham, Inc.

> California Supreme Court · August 24, 1989 · 49 Cal. 3d 454

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9539830

## Case

- **Full name:** MONTEREY S.P. PARTNERSHIP, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. W. L. BANGHAM, INC., Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 24, 1989
- **Citations:** 49 Cal. 3d 454; 261 Cal. Rptr. 587; 777 P.2d 623; 1989 Cal. LEXIS 1600
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Broussard
- **Judges:** Lucas, Mosk, Broussard
- **Cited by:** 52 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9539830

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- rejecting that a deed of trust conveyed true title to the trustee

## Opinion text

BROUSSARD, J.
I concur in the judgment and in the court’s opinion insofar as it holds that the default judgment in the foreclosure proceeding was not binding on the beneficiaries of the deed of trust. The Court of Appeal had held that the default judgment was binding, and I concur in the reversal. We need not go any further in this case.
I do not concur in the statement on page 459 of the majority opinion and footnote 3 appended to it which go further and conclude that the lienor forfeited its rights. Issues of potential other equities were not addressed in the briefs filed in this court. The case cited in the footnote, Riley v. Peters (1961) 194 Cal.App.2d 296 [ 15 Cal.Rptr. 41 ], is not necessarily controlling. In that case the mechanic’s lienor failed to name the parties to the trust deed in the foreclosure action within 90 days of the filing of the lien as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1198.1. In the instant case, the lienor commenced its action within the 90-day period and named the beneficiaries. The code section does not appear applicable.
We should limit our decision to the issue that was briefed to us and not reach out for additional matters not necessary to our decision.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9539830. Public record. Not legal advice.