- 9 -
savings and loan associations. Thus, section 3054 of the
California Civil Code does not apply here.
2. Whether Petitioner Is Deemed To Have Pledged Property
as Security Based on Bloom v. Bender
Petitioners contend that petitioner’s guaranty of Green
Valley debt was an economic outlay under Bloom v. Bender, 48 Cal.
2d 793 (1957). Petitioners contend that, under Bloom, the
obligation of a guarantor is presumed to be unconditional, and a
guarantor is liable on the default of the primary obligor without
notice or demand. Petitioners contend that petitioner’s
guaranties amount to an unconditional obligation which
effectively results in a general lien on petitioner’s personal
property. Thus, petitioners contend that petitioner made an
economic outlay to the extent that his personal property was
unavailable as collateral for other investments. Petitioners’
reliance on Bloom is misplaced.
The plaintiff in Bloom sued the guarantor to enforce a
written surety agreement after default by the principal debtor.
The California Supreme Court held that the obligation of the
guarantor is not barred by the running of the statute of
limitations against the principal debtor or the discharge of the
principal debtor in bankruptcy. Id. at 798. The California
Supreme Court did not discuss or decide whether the guarantor
pledged collateral or whether there was an economic outlay by the
guarantor. We conclude that Bloom does not apply here.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011