Quick Links |
Memorandum of Decision Re: One-Action Rule
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
In re
FOOTHILL OAKS, INC., No. 1-88-01336
Debtor.
___________________________/
RAYMOND A. CAREY, Trustee,
Plaintiff,
v. A.P. No. 91-1213
CARMEL FINANCIAL GROUP XXII,
Defendant.
______________________________/
The one-action rule is said to be for the benefit only of the principal debtor and therefore not applic- able to parties who are secondarily liable, such as guarantors or sureties. Murphy v Hellman Commercial Trust & Sav. Bank (1919) 43 CA 579, 185 P 485. Two cases cited by plaintiff, In re Madigan, 122 B.R. 103 (9th Cir.1991, and In re Tidrick, 105 B.R. 584 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.1989), are not applicable to these facts because both cases involved real property security owned by the guarantor. This case involves real property security owned by the debtor, not the guarantor. The other case relied upon by plaintiff, In re Pajaro Dunes Rental Agency, Inc., 142 B.R. 383 (Bankr.N.D.Cal.1992), is not applicable because in that case the note holder obtained a judgment against the maker of the note. This memorandum constitutes the court's findings and conclusions pursuant to FRCP 52(a) and FRBP 7052. Dated: December 7, 1992 _______________________ Alan Jaroslovsky U.S. Bankruptcy |

