Kinsmith Financial Corp. v. Gilroy
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
MARCHIANO, P. J.
Defendant J. Robert Gilroy, a judgment debtor, claims that a 1992 deficiency judgment is unenforceable because more than 10 years passed since issuance of the original foreclosure decree. Gilroy contends that the time for renewing the judgment ran from the date of the foreclosure decree and not from the entry of the deficiency judgment. But the one action rule of Code of Civil Procedure section 726 and the procedure for renewal of judgments in sections 683.110 to 683.220, as applied to this case, allow renewal of the deficiency judgment. We reject Gilroy’s argument…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Griset v. Fair Political Practices CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001
- Security Pacific National Bank v. WozabCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
- Zappettini v. BucklesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
- Citicorp Real Estate, Inc. v. SmithCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
- Middleton v. FinneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- First CA Bank v. McDonaldCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
- First CA Bank v. McDonaldCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
- Kalicki v. ETrade Bank CA4/1California Court of Appeal · 2015
- Majestic Asset Mgmt LLC v. The Colony at Cal. Homeowners Assn.California Court of Appeal · 2024