to exercise its option to accelerate, it was not required to give Crystal notice of its intent to apply the default interest rate. Crystal counters that despite the language in the contract, a creditor must take affirmative action to put the debtor on notice that it intends to exercise its option to accelerate. We believe that Crystal has the better of the argument. While California law governs the issue, the question is closed to debate. Both state and federal courts have made clear the unquestionable principle that, even when the terms of a note do not require notice or demand as a prerequisite to accelerating a note, the holder must take affirmative action to notify the debtor that it intends to accelerate. See Green v. Carlstrom, 212 Cal.App.2d 240, 243, 27 Cal.Rptr. 850 (1963) (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted); Trigg v. Arnott, 22
holding that a bank is required to notify the maker of a promissory note by some affirmative act upon exercise of its option to accelerate the maturity date of the note holding that the option to accelerate a promissory note does not operate automatically but some act is required to effect such acceleration holding that when the basis of the earlier suit was that the plaintiff had had defaulted on a promissory note and the claim in the instant action is whether that promissory note was valid the transaction test is met holding that the words without notice or demand in an optional acceleration clause do not negate the requirement that the holder affirmatively elect to accelerate the debt because the option is not selfexecuting it is mandatory that some definitive action be made on the part of the lender citation omitted holding that a promissory note is not enforceable against a party who signed the deed of trust but did not sign the promissory note inasmuch as promissory notes and deeds of trust are separate legal documents with unique purposes