BOCK v. CALIFORNIA CAPITAL LOANS, INC., C069863. (2013)
Court: Court of Appeals of California
Number: incaco20130520024
Visitors: 9
Filed: May 20, 2013
Latest Update: May 20, 2013
Summary: CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION MODIFICATION OF OPINION [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT] THE COURT: The opinion of this court filed May 14, 2013, in the above entitled case is modified as follows: The second sentence of the second paragraph on 8 page beginning "According to Bock" is deleted and the following sentence is inserted in its place: According to Bock, the interest that the lender, California Capital, was to have earned on the loan cannot be considered compensation to Speckert for purposes of se
Summary: CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION MODIFICATION OF OPINION [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT] THE COURT: The opinion of this court filed May 14, 2013, in the above entitled case is modified as follows: The second sentence of the second paragraph on 8 page beginning "According to Bock" is deleted and the following sentence is inserted in its place: According to Bock, the interest that the lender, California Capital, was to have earned on the loan cannot be considered compensation to Speckert for purposes of sec..
More
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
MODIFICATION OF OPINION
[NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]
THE COURT:
The opinion of this court filed May 14, 2013, in the above entitled case is modified as follows:
The second sentence of the second paragraph on 8 page beginning "According to Bock" is deleted and the following sentence is inserted in its place:
According to Bock, the interest that the lender, California Capital, was to have earned on the loan cannot be considered compensation to Speckert for purposes of section 1916.1, even though Speckert was the sole shareholder of the corporation, and since Speckert did not take a commission on the transaction, Speckert did not act for compensation or in expectation of compensation in arranging the loan.
This modification does not affect the judgment.
ROBIE, Acting P. J., MURRAY, J. and DUARTE, J.
Source: Leagle
