Legal Opinion

Kinsmith Financial Corp. v. Gilroy

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 16, 2003No. A098147, A098661PublishedCited by 4 opinions

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

  1. Griset v. Fair Political Practices CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Security Pacific National Bank v. WozabCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
  3. Zappettini v. BucklesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
  4. Citicorp Real Estate, Inc. v. SmithCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
  5. Middleton v. FinneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. First CA Bank v. McDonaldCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
  2. First CA Bank v. McDonaldCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
  3. Kalicki v. ETrade Bank CA4/1California Court of Appeal · 2015
  4. Majestic Asset Mgmt LLC v. The Colony at Cal. Homeowners Assn.California Court of Appeal · 2024

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

Powered by the Exa API