Runyon

Comerica Bank v. Runyon

Good Law
16 Cal. App. 5th 473·2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 916·224 Cal. Rptr. 3d 372·2017 WL 4707743
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 20, 2017G053691California3,732 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Ikola, J.

*475 Appellants Gordon Runyon and Donna Runyon were once married. 1 In July 2010 respondent Comerica Bank (Comerica) obtained a joint and several judgment for breach of guaranty against Gordon and some other defendants. Gordon and Donna then divorced, the other judgment debtors settled with Comerica, and postdivorce, Comerica obtained an order to show cause why real property that was formerly community property but *476 then owned as separate property by Donna, should not be sold to satisfy the remaining debt owing on the judgment. Donna (over vehement objection), the Facciutos, and Kissen each paid certain sums, and eventually the judgment was satisfied in full.

Gordon filed an application for order of contribution contending he paid more than his proportional share of the judgment through his community property interests. 2 He requested contribution from the cojudgment debtors. The court denied the motion on grounds the application failed to demonstrate it was timely filed. In this appeal, Gordon contends he satisfied the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure sections 881 through 883 under which he seeks contribution, because when his application was heard Comerica had not…

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.