Heyman

Heyman v. Franchise Mortgage Acceptance Corp.

Good Law
107 Cal. App. 4th 921·132 Cal. Rptr. 2d 465·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 506·2003 Daily Journal DAR 3898·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3058
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 8, 2003G030352California2,322 words

Opinion

Opinion

O'Leary, J.

Jeffrey Heyman appeals the judgment in his breach of contract and fraud action. He had voluntarily dismissed the identical lawsuit eight years earlier after settling with the defendants. Heyman challenges the trial court’s refusal to set aside the dismissal of the prior action on the ground it had been procured through extrinsic fraud and he contends the trial court improperly excluded evidence that would have enabled him to prove extrinsic fraud. We affirm.

Facts and Procedure

The 1992 Action

In 1992, Heyman sued Franchise Mortgage Acceptance Corporation (FMAC), Wayne Knyal, Dennis Fitzpatrick, Arthur Brazy, and other defendants. Heyman alleged that in 1988, his research on the loan default rate of fast -food franchisees had knocked conventional lending wisdom on its head—the default rate was “actually very low.” Thus, he “originated and developed the idea of a securitized pool of franchisee loans.”

Knyal and Fitzpatrick were principals of CBI Financial Services. Heyman met with them and confidentially explained his plan for securitizing franchisee loans. CBI had an ongoing relationship with Taco Bell, but had been unsuccessful at setting up a franchisee loan program…

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.