Legal Opinion

Homami v. Iranzadi

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 26, 1989No. H003970PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

BRAUER, J.

Ahmad S. Homami sued Mansoor Iranzadi to collect the balance due on a promissory note. Iranzadi claimed he had paid down the principal balance by approximately $40,000. Homami acknowledged receiving that amount but claimed the payments represented interest only. The note expressly provided: “This note shall bear no interest.’’ But Homami testified at trial that the parties nonetheless had an oral agreement for the payment of 12 percent interest per annum. According to Homami the no interest provision on the note was only so that he could avoid reporting the income for state…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Loving & Evans v. BlickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
  2. Franklin v. Nat C. Goldstone AgencyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
  3. Young v. HamptonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
  4. Haruko Takeuchi v. SchmuckCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
  5. Lee on v. LongCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Birbrower, Montalbano, Condon & Frank v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. Alza Corp.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1992
  3. Hill v. San Jose Family Housing Partners, LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
  4. Central States Health & Life Co. v. Miracle Hills Ltd. PartnershipNebraska Supreme Court · 1990
  5. Olson v. CohenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API