MacEdo

MacEdo v. Bosio

Good Law
104 Cal. Rptr. 2d 1·2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 78·2001 Daily Journal DAR 1205·86 Cal. App. 4th 1044
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 10, 2001A090484California3,149 words

Opinion

Opinion

Haerle, J.

I. Introduction

This is an action, originally filed in Humboldt County and then transferred to San Francisco, to set aside certain Stanislaus County real property conveyances as fraudulent. The superior court sustained a demurrer to appellant’s amended complaint without leave to amend. The basis of its ruling was that the suit was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. We reverse.

II. Factual and Procedural Background

In September 1986, both appellant Loretta Macedo (hereafter appellant) and respondent Richard J. Bosio (hereafter Bosio) were named as defendants in a Humboldt County breach of contract action; that action (Redwood Empire Aggregates v. Macedo (Super. Ct. Humboldt County, 1992, No. 78250)) (action No. 78250) claimed that both were indebted to the several plaintiffs in an amount in excess of $500,000. In June 1992, judgment was entered in that action in favor of two of the plaintiffs and against appellant and Bosio in an amount in excess of $173,000, plus prejudgment interest from 1985. The judgment also required Bosio to pay in excess of $19,000 to certain other plaintiffs.

The judgment remained unsatisfied through December 1998; however,…

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.