Volume 27 Number
|
|
- Edmund Freeman
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Volume 27 Number THE JOURNAL OF THE LITIGATION SECTION, STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
2 Riverisland: Inordinate Burdens or Leveling the Playing Field By David J. Myers David J. Myers There has always been a tension between written contract expectations and judicial economy, on the one hand, and the prevention of fraud on the other. Until Riverisland Cold Storage, Inc. v. Fresno-Madera Pro duc tion Credit Ass n (2013) 55 Cal.4th 1169, resolution of that tension in California favored contract clarity and the minimization of litigation, even at the expense of truth and fairness. Now, however, as in most states, California courts must consider oral inducements that rise to the level of fraud, even if inconsistent with integrated written contract terms. California Litigation Vol. 27 No
3 Given the current economic backdrop, this shift in priorities was obviously of great importance to our Supreme Court, and may not create the unmanageable burdens that some may fear, due to the strict pleading and proof requirements applicable to fraud claims that the court highlighted in support of its decision. Indeed, a number of limitations are already being developed by our courts, or have been adopted in other states and may also find acceptance here. The decision may also foretell an equally significant shift in the resolution of the tension between at-will termination rights and employee expectations of ongoing employment for satisfactory performance. Unlike the impossible burden on employers and courts to address punitive damage claims based on indeterminate implied good faith obligations that rightfully were rejected in Foley v. In teractive Data Corp. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 317, proof of oral promises of ongoing employment at variance with integrated atwill provisions that amount to fraud is as manageable as in any other context, and seemingly should now be actionable. Thus, under the new rule, the key to protecting contract expectations, and avoiding fraud claims and protracted litigation, will be in the handling of negotiations, recordkeeping, and more particularized contract drafting, on what amounts to a more level playing field that should no longer favor either lender or borrower, landlord or tenant, vendor or purchaser, employer or employee, or any other contract party that may enjoy superior bargaining power or be able to benefit from standardized contract forms. Application So Far Not surprisingly, the courts that have since decided cases have engaged in extensive analysis of transaction histories to resolve the numerous questions of fact involved in ascertaining the parties intentions and justifiable reliance. For example, in Julius Castle Res taurant, Inc. v. Payne (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1423, 1442, the court affirmed a fraud judgment for damages in favor of a restaurant operator tenant against its landlord. The lease included the customary as-is provision, a representation by the tenant that it had inspected and approved the condition of the premises, limitation of the landlord s repair obligations to the structure, and an integration clause. (Id. at p ) However, the restaurant owner obtained a preliminary in junction restraining the sale of its liquor license (id. at p. 1428), and was allowed to assert at trial claims that the landlord failed to disclose that substantial improvements were undertaken without required permits that jeopardized the ability to operate the restaurant, misrepresented that the restaurant equipment was in good working order, and falsely promised, if it was not, to make good on any needed repairs (id. at pp ). Similarly, in Thrifty Payless, Inc. v. Americana at Brand, LLC (2013) 218 Cal. App.4th 1230, 1244, the court reversed an order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims against a shopping center landlord. The basis for the claims was that the landlord charged Thrifty for 5.7% of the center s expenses under the triple net (NNN) provision contained in its lease, more than double the 2.2% estimated in the letter of intent on which the lease was based, a difference of about $342,704 for the first year alone. Thrifty alleged that, despite its lease acknowledgment, the NNN charges provided by the landlord were only estimates, the landlord knew Thrifty was relying on the estimates to evaluate the suitability of the project, that its reliance on the estimates was reasonable because the landlord had all or most of the needed information and a better understanding of the needs to calculate accurate charges since it owned a number of shopping centers, that Thrifty did not have access to the necessary records and was not in a position to discover the true ultimate operating 10
4 costs, and that it had relied upon and received reliable comparable information in its past dealings with the landlord. (Id. at pp ) In addition, Thrifty discovered after filing its complaint, and advised the trial court at the time of hearing, that the landlord knew or should have known the estimate was inaccurate because it told other prospective tenants that their NNN shares would be substantially higher, and made a deal with a movie theater to charge it less than its pro rata share based on square footage. Finding that the estimates were grossly inaccurate, the court held that the facts were sufficient to support causes of action, and that Thrifty should have been allowed to amend its complaint, thus suggesting a heavy pleading requirement being imposed on Thrifty. Potential Limitations The California cases have already started to define limitations. Failure to Read a Contract In River - island, the lender claimed that the borrowers admitted failure to read the contract should have prevented them from demonstrating reasonable reliance as a matter of law. Since the claim was not addressed in the lower courts, the Supreme Court declined to ad dress the claim. However, in a footnote at the end of the opinion, the Court noted that it has already held that a failure to read a contract will preclude a claim for fraud in the execution, but that since the issue is not currently before the Court, it is not expressing any view on the validity and exact parameters of a more lenient rule that has been applied to promissory fraud claims. (Id., fn. 11.) Any limitation is not likely to be absolute, however, as evidenced by Doe v. Gangland Productions, Inc. (9th Cir. 2013) 730 F.3d 946, , which allowed a claim of fraud despite the plaintiff s failure to have read the contract at issue. There, the plaintiff alleged fraud in both the execution and inducement of a television release, and was able to overcome a SLAPP motion to dismiss the claim, even though he did not read the release before signing, based on allegations that he was dyslexic, illiterate, told the defendant he As long as they can satisfy the proof re quirements, their fraud claims should seemingly be heard too, a problem to which our Supreme Court has shown an acute sensitivity in its post-foley decisions regarding fraud claims in the employment context. had an extremely difficult time reading, and was told by the defendant that the document he was signing was just a receipt for the $300 payment he was receiving for his interview, so the plaintiff decided not to have his girlfriend read the release to him. 11
5 Sophistication of the Parties As things stand, a sophisticated party will not per se be barred from asserting rights under the new rule because of its sophistication. That argument was rejected in Julius Castle. The court noted that Riverisland made no such holding, that the blunt language of the opinion belies the assertion, that the plaintiffs in Riverisland appeared to be relatively sophisticated business people, and that distinguishing sophisticated business parties That argument too was rejected in Julius Castle, again as not having been expressed in River island, and as a limitation that the court declined to read into the decision. (Id. at p ) Thus, it is reasonable to expect that the relative bargaining power of contract parties will be considered, and that greater leniency will be shown to parties with lesser bargaining power, but that even sophisticated parties will be able to obtain relief under appropriate circumstances. who should be barred from introducing parol evidence of fraud is not as simple as defendants suggest. (Julius Castle, 216 Cal.App. 4th at pp ) Thus, the sophistication of the parties is a factor, and a potentially complex one, in determining the reasonableness of a party s conduct, in which the more sophisticated a party, the more stringently reliance will likely be judged, as in Thrifty. Bargaining Power Similarly, relief is not limited to parties in weak bargaining positions, such as in contracts of adhesion. Failure to Investigate Although so far not specifically addressed, by extension, it is also reasonable to assume that a complete failure to undertake any investigation will not necessarily preclude relief. For example, a party may be excused if legally incapable or lacking the ability or resources to do so, or where there is no duty to investigate representations by a fiduciary. (Davis v. Kahn (1970) 7 Cal.App.3d 868, 878.) Setoff, Reformation, and Rescission Although, technically, the fraud exception to the parol evidence rule may not be applied to 12
6 modify contract terms, a party could still prevail on a contract claim and lose a fraud claim, and have the verdicts setoff, as in Julius Castle. As a result, the landlord prevailed on its contract claim, and the restaurant prevailed on its fraud claim, resulting in a setoff and an approximate $150,000 net judgment. That result should be avoidable, however, as in Thrifty, in which the court held that sufficient facts had been pleaded to support a reformation claim based on the mutual mistake created by the same facts as the alleged fraud. A reformation claim based on mutual mistake was also asserted but not addressed in Riverisland. A rescission claim would also seem a viable option to avoid this result. Other Jurisdictions Other states have also recognized limitations that could find acceptance here. Integration Clauses and Settlements Texas has limited challenges to integration clauses in settlement agreements, since designed to end disputes, if they contain a clear and unequivocal disclaimer of reliance, and the agreement is the product of arm s-length negotiations between sophisticated parties represented by competent counsel (Italian Cowboy Partners, Ltd. v. Pruden tial Ins. Co. of Am. (Tex. 2011) 341 S.W.3d 323.) The analysis has also been applied in other contexts, including a residential lease. (Mat - lock Place Apartments, L.P. v. Druce (Tex. App. 2012) 369 S.W.3d 355, 369.) Omitted Material Terms A Maryland court has also held that reasonable reliance is precluded as a matter of law on alleged omitted important terms that could and should have been included in a written contract if agreed upon after prolonged negotiations between sophisticated parties. (Central Truck Center, Inc. v. Central GMC, Inc. (Md.App. 2010) 4 A.3d 515.) Employment Contracts Unlike conduct subsequent to the formation of an employment relationship, which California courts acknowledge may be sufficient to create an implied agreement modifying an at-will employment relationship (Guz v. Bechtel Nat., Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, ), California courts have until now relied on the parol evidence rule to prohibit proof of contemporaneous oral agreements at variance with written at-will provisions, and barred promissory fraud claims on the grounds that the employee will be unable to show justifiable reliance. (Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, ; Agosta v. Astor (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 596, 606, relying on Casa Herrera, Inc. v. Beydoun (2004) 32 Cal.4th 336, 346, which relied on Pendergrass.) Thus, in the same way as Riverisland eliminated the Pendergrass protections in loan transactions, and Julius Castle and Thrifty did so in lease transactions involving as-is provisions, seemingly the Pender - grass protections should no longer apply to employment transactions involving at-will provisions either. Indeed, what about the person that forgoes another job, moves to accept a position, or forgoes an opportunity during employment because someone says, All contracts here are at-will. But you don t have to worry. You won t be fired as long as you re doing a good job (or the like). As long as they can satisfy the proof re - quirements, their fraud claims should seemingly be heard too, a problem to which our Supreme Court has shown an acute sensitivity in its post-foley decisions regarding fraud claims in the employment context. (E.g., Hunter v. Up-Right, Inc. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1174 [fraud in the termination of at-will em - ployment not actionable]; Lazar v. Rykoff- Sexton, Inc. (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631 [fraud in the absence of written at-will contract actionable].) David J. Myers practices in Los Angeles and focuses on commercial and real estate transactions, and business, real estate and entertainment litigation. lodjm@earthlink.net 13
Reprinted in part from Volume 25, Number 3, January 2015 (Article starting on page 193 in the actual issue) ARTICLE
MILLER & STARR REAL ESTATE NEWSALERT Reprinted in part from Volume 25, Number 3, January 2015 (Article starting on page 193 in the actual issue) ARTICLE NOT WORTH THE PAPER IT S PRINTED ON? Strategies
More informationThe Boiling Point Drafting and Defending Boilerplate Contract Provisions-PART II
The Boiling Point Drafting and Defending Boilerplate Contract Provisions-PART II Gregory M. Bergman & Robert D. Bergman 10880 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900 ""Los Angeles, CA 90024 "(310) 470-6110 17762 Cowan,
More informationWilliam Mitchell Law Review
William Mitchell Law Review Volume 40 Issue 1 Article 5 2013 He Said She Said: Parol Evidence of Fraud Is Admissible to Prove the Invalidity of a Contract - Riverisland Cold Storage, Inc. v. Fresno-Madera
More informationFor more than seventy-five years, California courts have precluded evidence
California Supreme Court Overrules Pendergrass and Permits Evidence of Promises at Variance with the Terms of a Contract Kathleen Kizer and Donna Parkinson It was never intended that the parol evidence
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JOHNNY S-LIVONIA, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED May 19, 2015 v No. 320430 Wayne Circuit Court LAUREL PARK RETAIL PROPERTIES, LLC., LC No. 12-012704-CZ Defendant-Appellee.
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL CENTER
Joshua Taylor (SB LAW OFFICES OF TAYLOR AND ASSOCIATES Island Avenue, Ste#1 San Diego, CA 01 ( -0 Telephone Attorney for Defendant David Deffen SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN
More informationReality of Consent. Reality of Consent. Reality of Consent. Chapter 13
Reality of Consent Chapter 13 Reality of Consent It is crucial to the economy and commerce that the law be counted on to enforce contracts. However, in some cases there are compelling reasons to permit
More informationFreedom to Contract in Texas - Enforceability of an As Is Clause in a Commercial Leased: Gym-N-I Playgrounds, Inc. v. Snider
SMU Law Review Volume 61 2008 Freedom to Contract in Texas - Enforceability of an As Is Clause in a Commercial Leased: Gym-N-I Playgrounds, Inc. v. Snider Natalie Smeltzer Follow this and additional works
More informationMISTAKE. (1) the other party to the contract knew or should have known of the mistake; or
MISTAKE Mistake of Fact: The parties entered into a contract with different understandings of one or more material facts relating to the contract s performance. Mutual Mistake: A mistake by both contracting
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV
AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed August 14, 2018. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-16-01413-CV LAKEPOINTE PHARMACY #2, LLC, RAYMOND AMAECHI, AND VALERIE AMAECHI, Appellants V.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
Filed 7/29/16 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL SECOND DIST. MOSHE YHUDAI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DIVISION ONE B262509
More informationhis reliance was reasonable.1 See Brown v. Techdata Corp Ga. 622, 624-
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: November 17, 2014 S13G1826. RAYSONI v. PAYLESS AUTO DEALS, LLC et al. Blackwell, Justice. To make out a claim at common law for fraud, a plaintiff must show not
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
Filed 7/29/16 Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage CA2/1 Opinion on remand from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties
More informationCase 4:15-cv Document 33 Filed in TXSD on 12/15/16 Page 1 of 8
Case 4:15-cv-01595 Document 33 Filed in TXSD on 12/15/16 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION CYNTHIA BANION, Plaintiff, VS. CIVIL ACTION
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE A152336
Filed 10/16/18 Spencer v. Securitas Security Services, USA CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on
More informationWILLIAM M. SALES OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE S. BERNARD GOODWYN February 25, 2010 KECOUGHTAN HOUSING COMPANY, LTD., ET AL.
PRESENT: All the Justices WILLIAM M. SALES OPINION BY v. Record No. 090143 JUSTICE S. BERNARD GOODWYN February 25, 2010 KECOUGHTAN HOUSING COMPANY, LTD., ET AL. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF HAMPTON
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs November 21, 2005
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs November 21, 2005 THE CADCO, LLC, ET AL. v. OLIVER A. BARRY, ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sumner County No. 23858-C C. L.
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Filed 7/29/09 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT GE LEE et al., F056107 Plaintiffs and Respondents, (Super. Ct. No. 05 CECG 03705) v. GEORGE
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 11-0213 444444444444 COINMACH CORP. F/K/A SOLON AUTOMATED SERVICES, INC., PETITIONER, v. ASPENWOOD APARTMENT CORP., RESPONDENT 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
More informationGray v. Am. Safety Indem. Co.
Gray v. Am. Safety Indem. Co. Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Four December 3, 2018, Opinion Filed B289323 Reporter 2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 8160 * DEBRA GRAY et al.,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION OPINION AND ORDER
Pennington v. CarMax Auto Superstores Inc Doc. 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION PATRICIA PENNINGTON, Plaintiff, VS. CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORES INC., Defendant. CIVIL
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO B248601
Filed 4/9/15 Napoleon Pictures Ltd. v. Fox Searchlight Pictures CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO A146745
Filed 9/29/17 Rosemary Court Properties v. Walker CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
More informationAt Liberty to Lie? The Viability of Fraud Claims after Disclaiming Reliance By Andrew M. Zeitlin and Alison P. Baker
ARTICLES At Liberty to Lie? The Viability of Fraud Claims after Disclaiming Reliance By Andrew M. Zeitlin and Alison P. Baker Writing for the New York Court of Appeals, Judge Edward R. Finch once wrote,
More informationCase 3:09-cv RPC Document 23 Filed 02/12/2010 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 3:09-cv-02143-RPC Document 23 Filed 02/12/2010 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA : CABOT OIL & GAS CORPORATION : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:09-CV-2143
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS KAREN BYRD, individually and as Next Friend for, LEXUS CHEATOM, minor, PAGE CHEATOM, minor, and MARCUS WILLIAMS, minor, UNPUBLISHED October 3, 2006 Plaintiff-Appellant,
More informationGenuineness of Assent
Genuineness of Assent A party who demonstrates that she did not genuinely assent to the terms of a contract may avoid an otherwise valid contract. Genuine assent may be lacking due to mistake, fraudulent
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV
AFFIRMED; Opinion Filed July 11, 2014. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-00552-CV COLLECTIVE ASSET PARTNERS, LLC, Appellant V. BERNARDO K. PANA, ACCP, LP, AND FIRENZE
More informationCase 0:14-cv WPD Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/05/2014 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 0:14-cv-60975-WPD Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/05/2014 Page 1 of 8 WENDY GRAVE and JOSEPH GRAVE, vs. Plaintiffs, WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 16-3068 Johnson Regional Medical Center lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Dr. Robert Halterman lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Filed 12/22/14 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT KNOWLEDGE HARDY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. AMERICA S BEST HOME LOANS et al., F067389
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
Page 1 of 8 SEAN & SHENASSA 26, LLC, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. No. D063003. Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One. Filed October
More informationOF MANTECA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. MORRISON HOMES, INC. ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND RESPONDENTS,
August 28, 2009 PULTE HOME CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT, v. CITY OF MANTECA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. MORRISON HOMES, INC. ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND RESPONDENTS, v. CITY OF MANTECA, DEFENDANT AND
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE B156171
Filed 5/16/03 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE STEPHEN M. GAGGERO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. B156171 (Los Angeles County
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 15-60683 Document: 00513486795 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/29/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Summary Calendar EDWARDS FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, L.P.; BEHER HOLDINGS TRUST,
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE B204853
Filed 1/23/09 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE PRO VALUE PROPERTIES, INC., Cross-Complainant and Respondent, v. B204853
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Presently before the Court is Defendants Connecticut General
Mountain View Surgical Center v. CIGNA Health and Life Insurance Company et al Doc. 1 O UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 1 1 1 1 1 MOUNTAIN VIEW SURGICAL CENTER, a California
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR
Filed 5/31/16 Lee v. US Bank National Assn. CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS TAURUS MOLD, INC, a Michigan Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED January 13, 2009 v No. 282269 Macomb Circuit Court TRW AUTOMOTIVE US, LLC, a Foreign LC No.
More informationTexas Fiduciary Litigation Update. David F. Johnson
Texas Fiduciary Litigation Update David F. Johnson DISCLAIMERS These materials should not be considered as, or as a substitute for, legal advice, and they are not intended to nor do they create an attorney-client
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV
AFFIRMED; Opinion Filed December 3, 2013. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-12-00822-CV MILLER GLOBAL PROPERTIES, LLC, MILLER GLOBAL FUND V, LLC, SA REAL ESTATE LLLP, AND
More informationCase 1:09-cv MGC Document 24 Filed 02/21/13 Page 1 of 12. -against- 09 Civ (MGC)
Case 1:09-cv-06649-MGC Document 24 Filed 02/21/13 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------X ACA GALLERIES, INC., Plaintiff, OPINION AND
More informationv No Kent Circuit Court GREAT LAKES HEALTHCARE PURCHASING LC No CK NETWORK, INC.,
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S CUSTOM PACK SOLUTIONS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED February 22, 2018 v No. 334815 Kent Circuit Court GREAT LAKES HEALTHCARE PURCHASING
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Filed 1/31/17 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered
More informationSession: The False Claims Act Post-Escobar. Authors: Robert L. Vogel and Andrew H. Miller THE ESCOBAR CASE: SOME PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS INTRODUCTION
Session: The False Claims Act Post-Escobar Authors: Robert L. Vogel and Andrew H. Miller THE ESCOBAR CASE: SOME PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS INTRODUCTION In United Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel.
More informationReverse and Render in part; Affirm in part; Opinion Filed July 23, In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No.
Reverse and Render in part; Affirm in part; Opinion Filed July 23, 2015. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-01269-CV TIFFANY LYNN FRASER, Appellant V. TIMOTHY PURNELL,
More informationChristopher Kemezis v. James Matthews, Jr.
2010 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 9-20-2010 Christopher Kemezis v. James Matthews, Jr. Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-4844
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX
Filed 1/24/2017 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX DOUGLAS GILLIES, Plaintiff and Appellant, 2d Civil No. B272427 (Super.
More informationREQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS AND COSTS OF PROOF SANCTIONS
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS AND COSTS OF PROOF SANCTIONS JAMES GRAFTON RANDALL, ESQ. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS COSTS OF PROOF SANCTIONS AND NEED FOR EXPERTS Several people have recently pointed out to me that
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 13-1881 Elaine T. Huffman; Charlene S. Sandler lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellants v. Credit Union of Texas lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant
More informationDefenses And Limits Of Calif. Consumer Protection Laws
Defenses And Limits Of Calif. Consumer Protection Laws By Jason E. Fellner and Charles N. Bahlert California is often perceived as an anti-business and pro-consumer state, with numerous statutes regulating
More informationCase 3:08-cv CRB Document 17 Filed 08/20/2008 Page 1 of 20 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case :0-cv-0-CRB Document Filed 0//0 Page of 0 SHANNON B. JONES LAW GROUP SHANNON B. JONES (Bar No. DENISE R. HANNAN (Bar No. KENDRA J. JUE (Bar No. 00 Diablo Road Danville, California Telephone: ( - Facsimile:
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS CUSTOM DATA SOLUTIONS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED December 19, 2006 v No. 270752 Macomb Circuit Court PREFERRED CAPITAL, INC., LC No. 04-003376-CK Defendant-Appellant.
More informationPlaintiffs respectfully submit the following Reply Memorandum of Points and
http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentviewer.aspx?fid=4abdcd-ef-4b0e-7e-5feee50f 2 I.. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs respectfully submit the following Reply Memorandum of Points and 3 4 5 7 Authorities in further
More informationEleventh Court of Appeals
Opinion filed July 24, 2014 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals No. 11-12-00201-CV DLA PIPER US, LLP, Appellant V. CHRIS LINEGAR, Appellee On Appeal from the 201st District Court Travis County, Texas Trial
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION
Chapman et al v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al Doc. 37 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION BILL M. CHAPMAN, JR. and ) LISA B. CHAPMAN, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) )
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 1/16/14 Nissan Motor Acceptance v. Superior Automotive Group CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 13-2756 JOSEPH M. GAMBINO, as Independent Administrator of the Estate of Joseph J. Gambino Deceased, Plaintiff -Appellee, v. DENNIS D.
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS HAMILTON LYNCH HUNT CLUB LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED October 10, 2013 v No. 312612 Alcona Circuit Court LORRAINE M. BROWN and BIG MOOSE LC No. 10-001662-CZ
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 08-0238 444444444444 IN RE INTERNATIONAL PROFIT ASSOCIATES, INC.; INTERNATIONAL TAX ADVISORS, INC.; AND IPA ADVISORY AND INTERMEDIARY SERVICES, LLC, RELATORS
More informationCourt of Appeals. First District of Texas
Opinion issued March 12, 2015 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-14-00210-CV FREEDOM EQUITY GROUP, INC., Appellant V. MTL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee On Appeal from the 215th
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :0-cv-000-WQH-KSC Document Filed // Page of 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as Receiver for LA JOLLA BANK, FSB, Plaintiff, vs.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION VS. CIVIL ACTION H OPINION AND ORDER
Spencer v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al Doc. 22 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION DOROTHY Y. SPENCER, Plaintiff, VS. CIVIL ACTION H-14-0164 DEUTSCHE
More informationQuestion 1: I read that a mentally impaired adult s contracts may be void or voidable. Which is it?
Question 1: I read that a mentally impaired adult s contracts may be void or voidable. Which is it? Answer 1: It depends. If a court of proper jurisdiction has found an adult to be non compos mentis, or
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA GAINESVILLE DIVISION : : : : : : : : : : : : ORDER
Case 213-cv-00155-RWS Document 9 Filed 02/27/14 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA GAINESVILLE DIVISION OVIDIU CONSTANTIN, v. Plaintiff, WELLS FARGO BANK,
More informationCONTRACTS Mid-Term Examination Santa Barbara College of Law Fall 2000 Instructor: Craig Smith. Time Allotted - Two Hours
CONTRACTS Mid-Term Examination Santa Barbara College of Law Fall 2000 Instructor: Craig Smith Time Allotted - Two Hours An answer should demonstrate your ability to analyze the facts presented by the question,
More informationZervos v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Dist. Court, D. Maryland In Re: Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10)
Zervos v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Dist. Court, D. Maryland 2012 MEMORANDUM JAMES K. BREDAR, District Judge. CHRISTINE ZERVOS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendant. Civil No. 1:11-cv-03757-JKB.
More informationMISSOURI CIRCUIT COURT TWENTY-SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT (St. Louis City)
MISSOURI CIRCUIT COURT TWENTY-SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT (St. Louis City) TAMIKA DIAMOND, ) ) Plaintiff, ) vs. ) Cause No. 1322-SC00250 ) DON EATON REAL ESTATE, INC. & ) Division 27 TEKBOW, LLC, ) ) Defendants.
More informationAttorney for Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER. EDGARDO RODRIGUEZ, an individual,
VACHON LAW FIRM Michael R. Vachon, Esq. (SBN ) 0 Via del Campo, Suite San Diego, California Tel.: () -0 Fax: () - Attorney for Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE CENTRAL
More informationQuestion 3. Sam hereby agrees that he will not perform interior design services in Town for a period of two years.
Question 3 Sam decided to sell his interior design business in Town to Betty. While reviewing a purchase agreement drafted by Sam, Betty insisted on a covenant by Sam not to compete with her in the interior
More informationCLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 1 -
1 1 1 Plaintiff Marcel Goldman ( Plaintiff ), on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, complains and alleges the following: INTRODUCTION 1. This is a class action against The Cheesecake
More informationBRADY DISCOVERY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (INTERNAL POLICY) Revised April 22, 2010 INTRODUCTION
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY COUNTY OF VENTURA BRADY DISCOVERY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (INTERNAL POLICY) Revised April 22, 2010 INTRODUCTION The following is an internal policy that addresses
More informationIn 2005, Lange borrowed $1.387 million from Washington Mutual (WaMu). The loan had a low interest rate of 1.35 percent for one year, but the rate
In 2005, Lange borrowed $1.387 million from Washington Mutual (WaMu). The loan had a low interest rate of 1.35 percent for one year, but the rate could thereafter float up to 10.3 percent. The loan was
More informationSuperior Court of California
Superior Court of California County of Orange Case Number : 0-0-00-CU-BT-CXC Copy Request: Request Type: Case Documents Prepared for: cns Number of documents: Number of pages: 0 0 Thomas M. Moore (SBN
More informationSuperior Court of California
Superior Court of California County of Orange Case Number : 0--0001-CU-NP-CXC Copy Request: Request Type: Case Documents Prepared for: cns Number of documents: 1 Number of pages: Todd M. Friedman, Esq.-
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Filed 8/19/08 Lipkowitz v. Rite Aid Corp. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified
More informationHope for the best, but plan for the
Questioning CACI Especially When Medical Expense Damages Are at Issue! H. Thomas Watson, Horvitz & Levy LLP Hope for the best, but plan for the worst. That s good general advice, and it applies in the
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ROBERT VANHELLEMONT and MINDY VANHELLEMONT, UNPUBLISHED September 24, 2009 Plaintiffs-Appellants, v No. 286350 Oakland Circuit Court ROBERT GLEASON, MEREDITH COLBURN,
More informationLet's Make A Deal: What You Need to Know About Drafting and Enforcing Arbitration Agreements. April 15, 2015
Let's Make A Deal: What You Need to Know About Drafting and Enforcing Arbitration Agreements April 15, 2015 What Types of Disputes Are Arbitrable? Nearly any type of claim arising out of any contractual
More informationAttorney for Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL CENTER
VACHON LAW FIRM Michael R. Vachon, Esq. (SBN ) 0 Via del Campo, Suite San Diego, California Tel.: () -0 Fax: () - Attorney for Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO SOUTH
More informationCase 2:18-cv RLR Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2019 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 2:18-cv-14419-RLR Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2019 Page 1 of 7 GEICO MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., v. Plaintiffs, TREASURE COAST MARITIME, INC., doing business as SEA TOW TREASURE
More informationQuestion Of what crimes, if any, can Pete be convicted? Discuss.
Question 2 Pete is a salesperson at XYZ Real Estate Company ( XYZ ). Vic owned a parcel of industrial real estate that he wanted to sell. Vic retained Pete as his agent to sell the parcel for him, and
More informationREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2006 GEORGE STRATAKOS, ET UX. STEVEN J. PARCELLS, ET UX.
REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 253 September Term, 2006 GEORGE STRATAKOS, ET UX. v. STEVEN J. PARCELLS, ET UX. Murphy, C.J. Krauser, Barbera, JJ. Opinion by Barbera, J. Filed:
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 1/12/12 D.T.Woodard v. Mail Boxes Etc. CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
More informationF 1 CLEFIA OF THE- COURT O SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT 305. Case No. CGC
F 1 upotior Court of California County of San Frncioo O 4.2017 CLEFIA OF THE- COURT SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA Deputy Mark COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT 305 KELLY ELLIS, HOLLY PEASE, and KELLI WISURI,
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 11/23/16 Cannon & Nelms v. St. Andrews Development Corp. CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 08 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re FITNESS HOLDINGS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Debtor, SAM LESLIE, Chapter
More informationRULES GOVERNING THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY RULE 6:6. JUDGMENT
RULES GOVERNING THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY RULE 6:6. JUDGMENT 6:6-1. Applicability of Part IV Rules R. 4:42 (insofar as applicable), R. 4:43-3, R. 4:44 to 4:46, inclusive, and R. 4:48 to 4:50,
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/06/ :34 PM INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 106 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/06/2015
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/06/2015 04:34 PM INDEX NO. 450873/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 106 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/06/2015 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE NEW YORK: COUNTY OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------X
More informationCase 2:09-cv WHW-CCC Document 13 Filed 04/01/10 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Case 209-cv-05465-WHW-CCC Document 13 Filed 04/01/10 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMPMOR, INC., BRULANT, LLC, v. Plaintiff, Defendant. OPINION Civ. No. 09-5465 (WHW)
More informationby defendant Fresno Unified School District for judgment on the pleadings
(19) Tentative Ruling Re: Davis v. Fresno Unified School District Court Case No. 12CECG03718 Hearing Date: May 11, 2016 (Department 502) Motion: by defendant Fresno Unified School District for judgment
More informationLAWATYOURFINGERTIPS NO LIABILITY WHERE FRIEND AGREED TO HELP WITH ROOF REPAIR AND FELL OFF HOMEOWNERS ROOF:
LAWATYOURFINGERTIPS NO LIABILITY WHERE FRIEND AGREED TO HELP WITH ROOF REPAIR AND FELL OFF HOMEOWNERS ROOF: Friend agreed to help homeowner repair roof. Friend was an experienced roofer. The only evidence
More informationCONTRACT DISPUTES: WINNING FROM THE BEGINNING
Friday, January 27 th, 2017 CONTRACT DISPUTES: WINNING FROM THE BEGINNING Presented By Kimberly Gosling and Christian Andreu-von Euw Senior Associates, Morrison & Foerster, LLP ACC 14th ANNUAL GC ROUNDTABLE
More informationRELEASES AND WAIVERS IN HEALTH CLUB MEMBERSHIP APPLICATIONS [AND OTHER RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES] JAMES GRAFTON RANDALL, ESQ.
RELEASES AND WAIVERS IN HEALTH CLUB MEMBERSHIP APPLICATIONS [AND OTHER RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES] JAMES GRAFTON RANDALL, ESQ. CASENOTE JAMES GRAFTON RANDALL, ESQ. RELEASES AND LIABILITY WAIVERS IN HEALTH
More informationCASENOTE CAL-OSHA REGULATIONS APPLY TO A LANDLORD WHO HIRES AN UNLICENSED PERSON TO PAINT HIS RENTAL PROPERTY BY JAMES G. RANDALL LAWATYOURFINGERTIPS
CASENOTE CAL-OSHA REGULATIONS APPLY TO A LANDLORD WHO HIRES AN UNLICENSED PERSON TO PAINT HIS RENTAL PROPERTY BY JAMES G. RANDALL LAWATYOURFINGERTIPS Unlike a homeowner hiring one to do work on his personal
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX
Filed 9/25/06 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX LUIS CANO, Plaintiff and Respondent, 2d Civil No. B187267 (Super. Ct. No.
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV
AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed April 22, 2013. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-11-01540-CV CADILLAC BAR WEST END REAL ESTATE AND L. K. WALES, Appellants V. LANDRY S RESTAURANTS,
More informationCase 2:09-cv GCS-MKM Document 24 Filed 12/22/2009 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Case 2:09-cv-11239-GCS-MKM Document 24 Filed 12/22/2009 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION BRIAN MCLEAN and GAIL CLIFFORD, Plaintiffs, vs. Case No.
More informationCase 3:15-cv RBL Document 51 Filed 02/17/16 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
Case :-cv-0-rbl Document Filed 0// Page of HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON 0 CITIMORTGAGE, INC, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA Plaintiff, ESTATE OF ROBERT L. GEDDES;
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 17 March 2015
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA No. COA14-810 Filed: 17 March 2015 MACON BANK, INC., Plaintiff, Macon County v. No. 13 CVS 456 STEPHEN P. GLEANER, MARTHA K. GLEANER, and WILLIAM A. PATTERSON,
More information