Opinion ID: 1369418
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Effect of the Contractual Assignment

Text: Tract C contends that the trial court erred in its determination that ARE's approval of the assignment of the real estate contract between ARE and Tract C released Tract C from further obligation under the contract and absolved ARE from any duty to give Tract C notice of default under the agreement or supply it with a copy of the demand for payment. Under the terms of the agreement entered into between Tract C and KAC, the parties expressly provided that Tract C assigned unto KAC all rights, title interest and equity in and to    [the] Real Estate Contract [between ARE and Tract C] dated April 5, 1974   . James Hall, an attorney and the managing agent for Tract C, testified that although he did not receive a copy of the letter giving notice of default to KAC, he knew at least by May 4, 1980, that KAC had not made the installment payment due on April 15, 1980, and that he learned from ARE, in June 1980 that ARE had sent a notice of default to KAC. Upon learning of the notice of default, Hall wrote a letter to KAC dated June 24, 1980, stating: [A]s manager of the properties of Tract C    [I] have been informed that a demand has been made upon you to pay the April 15th payment due under the real estate contract between ARE and Tract C. In this letter Hall stated that a failure to make payments due under the contract was a breach of the agreement between Tract C and KAC and that demand is hereby made upon you to bring the underlying contract to a current status    within thirty (30) days from the date of this letter. As shown by the above evidence, Tract C had actual knowledge of the fact of KAC's default under the contract and that a notice of default had been given to KAC by ARE. Tract C's assignment of all of its right, title and interest under its contract between ARE and itself to KAC relieved ARE of any obligation to send notices of default to Tract C. In Drips v. Moore, 179 Cal. 249, 176 P. 159 (1918), the court dealt with a fact situation similar to the instant case. The court held that a purchaser who assigns all its right, title and interest to a third party, retains no interest in the property. Under the evidence, the trial court's finding and conclusion of law that ARE was not obligated to send formal notice of default to Tract C was correct.