Kenney

Kenney v. United States

Good Law
329 F. Supp. 2d 1193·2004 WL 1737279·94 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5471·2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15377
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJuly 30, 2004C03-3848 BZCalifornia2,231 words

Opinion

Opinion

Zimmerman, J.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PART

Before me are cross-motions for summary judgment based on stipulated facts. In 1978, plaintiff and his then-wife, Donna, purchased property located at 5239 Colonial Park Court, Fremont, CA (the “Property”) as joint tenants. Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts (“JS”) ¶¶ 4, 5. In June 1989 plaintiff and Donna permanently separated. Id. ¶ 7. At the time of their separation, the Property was encumbered by a promissory note secured by a deed of trust. Id. ¶¶ 5, 9. In 1991, plaintiff and Donna executed a second promissory note secured by the Property. Id. ¶ 10. Plaintiff and Donna were each liable on the two loans but following their separation in 1989, plaintiff made all payments on the loans. Id. ¶¶ 8, 10. Pursuant to oral agreements between Donna and plaintiff in 1989 and 1991, plaintiff agreed to assume responsibility for the two loans encumbering the Property. According to plaintiff, “[njecessarily implied” in the agreements was that (1) Donna would not be obligated to make her share of the payments, and (2) payments from plaintiff’s separate property on the two loans…

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.