Temple View Capital Funding v. Garnicki CA1/2

── Temple View Capital Funding v. Garnicki CA1/2 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 24, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/24/26 Temple View Capital Funding v. Garnicki CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO TEMPLE VIEW CAPITAL FUNDING, LP, Plaintiff and Appellant, A172052 v. (San Francisco County Super. Ct. TONY GARNICKI, No. GCG-21-596732) Defendant and Respondent. Through its manager Tony Garnicki, Ocean Avenue Real Estate Fund, LLC (Ocean Avenue) obtained a loan from Temple View Capital Funding, LP (Temple View). Garnicki personally guaranteed the loan, which was secured by real property. After Ocean Avenue defaulted on the loan, Temple View sold the property in a nonjudicial foreclosure sale and sued Garnicki for the difference between the sale price and the outstanding balance on the loan (the deficiency). The parties settled on the eve of trial, but Garnicki failed to make the first two payments required by the settlement agreement. Temple View filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement, which the court granted in part, entering the parties’ stipulated judgment but awarding Temple View “$0.00” as “the remaining deficiency balance.” We agree with Temple View that this award of zero dollars was an error; therefore, we 1 reverse the judgment and remand to the trial court with instructions to reconsider Temple View’s motion. BACKGROUND I. Legal Principles “A real property loan generally involves two documents, a promissory note and a security instrument.” (Alliance Mortgage Co. v. Rothwell (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1226, 1235 (Alliance Mortgage).) “The security instrument secures the promissory note” and “ ‘entitles the lender to reach some asset of the debtor if the note is not paid. In California, the security instrument is most commonly a deed of trust.’ ” (Id. at p. 1235.) If the borrower defaults on the promissory note, the lender may sell the security (the real property) through a process called “foreclosure, which may be either judicial or nonjudicial.” (Id. at p. 1236.) “In a judicial foreclosure, if the property is sold for less than the amount of the outstanding indebtedness, the creditor may seek a deficiency judgment, or the difference between the amount of the indebtedness and the fair market value of the property, as determined by a court, at the time of the sale.” (Alliance Mortgage, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 1236.) “In a nonjudicial foreclosure, also known as a ‘trustee’s sale,’ the trustee exercises the power of sale given by the deed of trust.” (Ibid.) The process is “less expensive” and quicker than judicial foreclosure; however, “the creditor may not seek a deficiency judgment” against the borrower due to “an elaborate and interrelated set of foreclosure and antideficiency statutes.” (Ibid.) A guarantor is a third party “who promises to answer for the debt or perform the obligation of another when the person fails to pay or perform.” (Gramercy Investment Trust v. Lakemont Homes Nevada, Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 903, 911 (Gramercy).) Thus, a guaranty agreement 2 memorializes “a separate and independent obligation from that of the principal debt” (United Central Bank v. Superior Court (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 212, 215), and the “anti