Babcock

Babcock v. Omansky

Bad Law
107 Cal. Rptr. 512·1973 Cal. App. LEXIS 1099·31 Cal. App. 3d 625
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 13, 1973Civ. 39410California3,189 words

Opinion

Opinion

Lillie, J.

Defendants have separately appealed from those portions of an amended judgment whereunder Leon was held liable to plaintiffs on four promissory notes plus interest and ordered to pay attorneys’ fees for services rendered in enforcing such obligations. Additional determinations made in the judgment will be discussed hereinafter.

The complaint’s first four causes of action sought recovery on the four notes, each in the sum of $5,500, executed by Leon on March 25, 1965; a fifth cause of action related to subsequent transfer by Leon to Bertha (his wife) of certain property without valid consideration and for the purpose of defrauding creditors; other conveyances, allegedly fraudulent, were sought to be set aside in four additional causes of action (sixth through ninth), while a tenth cause of action alleged that Bertha was liable to plaintiffs on Leon’s notes as a joint venturer. Upon commencement of the trial, plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss the sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth causes of action was granted. The trial then proceeded on the remaining portions of the complaint as well as on defendants’ amended cross-complaint which alleged that Leon’s promissory notes were…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.