Cross

Cross v. Bonded Adjustment Bureau

Good Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 774·48 Cal. App. 4th 266·55 Cal. Rptr. 2d 801·96 Daily Journal DAR 9780
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 9, 1996B087247California6,237 words

Opinion

Opinion

Masterson, J.

Plaintiffs Billy and Delores Cross retained Bonded Adjustment Bureau (Bonded), a collection agency, to enforce a judgment in the principal amount of approximately $150,000. Based on Bonded’s advice, the Crosses gave the judgment debtor a full satisfaction of judgment in exchange for $40,000.

Later, the Crosses brought this action against Bonded and others, alleging that defendants had engaged in wrongful conduct in attempting to collect on the judgment. The second amended complaint contained causes of action for negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The trial court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend as to the fiduciary duty and emotional distress claims, concluding that the Crosses had failed to state facts sufficient to constitute those causes of action. The court granted summary judgment on the negligence and contract claims, finding them barred by the statute of limitations. The Crosses appeal these rulings. We reverse.

Background

On March 4, 1993, the Crosses filed suit against Bonded, Robert Susnow, an attorney, and Susnow’s firm, alleging that the defendants had been retained to…

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.