Legal Opinion
Kenney v. United States
District Court, N.D. California
Decided July 30, 2004No. C03-3848 BZPublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PART
ZIMMERMAN, United States Magistrate Judge.
Before me are cross-motions for summary judgment based on stipulated facts. 1 In 1978, plaintiff and his then-wife, Donna, purchased property located at 5239 Colonial Park Court, Fremont, CA (the “Property”) as joint tenants. Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts (“JS”) ¶¶ 4, 5. In June 1989 plaintiff and Donna permanently separated. Id. ¶ 7. At the time of their separation, the Property was encumbered by a promissory note secured by a deed…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Aquilino v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
- United States v. BessSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Glass City Bank v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- United States v. Durham Lumber Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1960
- Caito v. United California BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Kenney v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2006
- George J. Kenney v. United States of America, and Ticor Title Co. Of California, Defendant-Counter-Claimant. George J. Kenney v. United States of America, and Ticor Title Co. Of California, Defendant-Counter-Claimant. George J. Kenney v. United States of America, and Ticor Title Co. Of California First Select Inc. Eskanos & Adler, Pc, George J. Kenney v. United States of America, and Ticor Title Co. Of California First Select Inc. Eskanos & Adler, PcCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2006