Court Opinion

ID: 9711433
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:31:38.648781+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:04.923752
License: Public Domain

HABHAB, Judge
(specially concurring).
The notice provided by appellee complied fully with the first notice requirement of section 654.20. This notice fully apprised appellants of the nature of the foreclosure proceeding with the possible exception of appellee’s obtaining a deficiency judgment. The second notice requirement of section 654.20, which was not provided to appellants, only pertains to the plaintiffs ability to obtain a deficiency judgment. The mere absence of this notice should only affect a plaintiff’s ability to obtain a deficiency judgment, not the validity of the underlying judgment.
I would hold that appellee’s omission of the second notice requirement contained within section 654.20 deprives appellee of the opportunity to secure a deficiency judgment, but leaves intact the foreclosure judgment.