This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.


Steiny and Company, Inc. v. Citicorp Real Estate, Inc.

Amount construction lender pays itself for interest accrued on loan doesn't have to be disclosed to claimant under 'stop notice laws.'



Cite as

1999 DJDAR 6137

Published

Aug. 4, 1999

Filing Date

Jun. 16, 1999


STEINY AND COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff, Respondent and Cross-appellant, v. CITICORP REAL ESTATE, INC., Defendant, Appellant and Cross-respondent. No. A075133 (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. 935776) California Court of Appeal First Appellate District Division Three Filed June 17, 1999
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]
        BY THE COURT:
        It is ordered that the opinion filed May 18, 1999, be modified in the following particulars:

1. On page 3*, the first sentence of the last paragraph is changed to read as follows:
        Finally, when in December 1990 it became clear that FCA could not meet its loan obligations and was unable to obtain additional financing to complete the project, CREI recorded a notice of default on the project and thereafter initiated foreclosure proceedings.

2. On page 20**, the second and third sentences of the first paragraph are changed to read as follows:
        Steiny reasons as follows: Taking into account the $95 million advanced under the construction loan agreement and the $50 million re-lent after payment of the interim advances, CREI made advances totaling $145 million on a $95 million loan. Because under the loan agreement CREI was only obligated to loan $95 million, the $50 million re-lent after payment of the interim advances constituted nonobligatory advances exceeding the original commitment and are therefore not subject to lien priority under section 3136.

        There is no change in the judgment. The petition for rehearing is denied.


*        See Daily Appellate Report of May 20, 1999, page 4665, column 2, last full paragraph.

**        See Daily Appellate Report of May 20, 1999, page 4670, column 2, second sentence, 1st full paragraph.




#248496

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390