Sanford

INTRODUCTION

Paul Sandford filed a complaint, followed by an amended complaint (the Sandford Complaint), against Michael Smith and Ronda Smith (together, the Smiths), asserting three causes of action: (1) creditor’s action under Code of Civil Procedure section 708.210 (section 708.210); (2) fraud; and (3) declaratory relief. The Smiths filed a cross-complaint, followed by an amended cross-complaint (the Smith Cross-complaint), against Sandford. The Smiths moved for summary judgment and, in the alternative, for summary adjudication. The trial court, in effect, granted summary judgment on the three causes of action of the Sandford Complaint. After the Smiths dismissed the Smith Cross-complaint without prejudice, a judgment was entered, from which Sandford brings this appeal. Because the Smith Cross-complaint had been dismissed without prejudice and with a stipulation to permit its later revival, we invited the parties to submit letter briefs on the issue of appellate jurisdiction. Having received and considered the parties’ letter briefs, we confirm our jurisdiction in part I of the Discussion. In part II of the Discussion, we address Sandford’s appeal on the merits, and affirm the…