Legal Opinion
Conner v. Conner
California Court of Appeal
Decided November 30, 1999No. B128736PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
YEGAN, J.
This case illustrates the venerable legal maxim of jurisprudence: “He who takes the benefit must bear the burden.” (Civ. Code, § 3521.) Appellant took the benefit of the bargain he made 10 years ago and now asks us to erase his name from a personally guaranteed note. We will not do so.
FM Conner and Cheryl A. Conner (FM) appeal from a $73,954.08 judgment entered in favor of respondents Billie G. Conner and Lola Fern Conner (Billie) on a promissory note. FM contends that the trial court erroneously found that Billie’s conduct as a creditor in a bankruptcy proceeding did not…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Bloom v. BenderCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
- Ben-Zvi v. Edmar Co.California Court of Appeal · 1995
- Bridge v. Connecticut Mutual Life InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
- Andrews v. Valley Ice Co.California Supreme Court · 1914
- Hayes v. JosephiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Coles v. GlaserCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
- 41 Collier bankr.cas.2d 305, Bankr. L. Rep. P 77,859, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9385, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9385, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,101, 3 Cal. Bankr. Ct. Rep. 30 in Re Amy Chang, Debtor. Aleta Beaupied George O. Ting v. Amy ChangCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998