Legal Opinion
Puma v. Sullivan
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided February 24, 2000No. 97-CV-1479PublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MACK, Senior Judge:
On March 31, 1997, appellants Paul and Sheryl Puma brought a claim against ap-pellee Ann Sullivan to recover Ms. Sullivan’s share of a $15,000 promissory note consummated with the Pumas by her then-husband Eric Ewoldt. Appellants contest the motions court’s granting of appellee’s motion for summary judgment. Appellants argue that the three-year statute of limitations does not preclude recovery of the loan because the note’s original May 25, 1984 maturity date (and thus the date of the breach) was orally extended to June 8, 1996, by Ewoldt during his marriage to Ms.…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Laumer v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1979
- Spellman v. American Security Bank, N.A.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1986
- Wyman v. RoesnerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1981
- A. J. Calhoun, Successor Trustee of Stax Records, Inc. v. Johnny Baylor and Koko Records, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1981
- Taylor v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1992
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Daisley v. Riggs Bank, N.A.District Court, District of Columbia · 2005
- Blodgett v. University ClubDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2007
- Echo Acceptance Corp. v. Household Retail Services, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2001
- Doe v. Medlantic Health Care Group, Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2003
- In Re Ty. B.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2005
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.