In Kaiser Industries Corp. v. Taylor (1971) 17 Cal. App. 3d 346, the defendant signed a promissory note and also sent a letter to a title company instructing it not to sell property in which he held an interest without the plaintiff's consent until the promissory note was satisfied. When the defendant breached, the plaintiff sued. The defendant asserted section 726 as a defense, contending that the parties had created an equitable mortgage by virtue of the letter defendant sent to the title company. The trial court awarded a personal judgment, and the appellate court reversed. While setting forth its analysis, the Kaiser Industries court noted that the California Supreme Court held in Coast Bank v. Minderhout (1964) 61 Cal.2d 311, that an agreement not to convey real property until all indebtedness is paid creates a security interest in the property upon which a creditor can foreclose. ( Kaiser Industries, supra, 17 Cal. App. 3d at p. 351.) The controlling factual question is whether the parties intended to create a security interest. (Ibid.) "The intent need not show on the face of the instrument, although the instrument must be reasonably susceptible of interpretation as a mortgage. " (Ibid.) A document restricting an owner's right to convey or encumber property creates an equitable mortgage, if that is the intention of the parties. (Ibid.) Finally, the court stated: "The question thus becomes one of whether there was sufficient evidence to support the implied finding that the parties did not intend to create an equitable mortgage.. . .It is clear that the parties intended this to be a secured transaction and that evidence did not support the finding that there was no equitable mortgage." ( Id. at p. 352.)