|
P0915 The fact that plaintiff is a California corporation with its principal place of business in California is sufficient to justify application of California law to a dispute under its contract with a Georgia defendant in which California law was chosen; after non-judicial foreclosure, California's anti-deficiency law does not prevent enforcement of an agreement to indemnify for the borrower's default.CitationTRUST ONE v INVEST AMERICA (Anti-Deficiency) 134 CA4 1302 [See: Nedlloyd v Superior Court 3 C4 459, T/AT 11/92; Hughes v Citibank 120 CA4 251, P/AT 9/04]
|
|
