The trial court correctly interpreted the parties' agreement, and the powers of attorney contained therein, as giving plaintiff the option of transferring defendants' property to herself or a third party in the event defendants did not sell the properties by the specified dates, but imposing upon plaintiff no obligation to do so. The agreement clearly contemplated that plaintiff could continue to look to the property as security for as long as defendants' indebtedness remained...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
