Plaintiff individual cosigner appealed a summary judgment from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) in favor of defendant bank and family cosigners on plaintiff’s claim of conspiracy by fraudulent transfers of assets to prevent plaintiff seeking contribution for family cosigners’ share of a bank loan. After summary judgment for bank, plaintiff nonsuited family cosigners to challenge summary judgment on appeal.
Plaintiff cosigner and defendant cosigners procured a $ 2,350,000 loan from defendant bank to fund a farming business. Concurrently, defendant cosigners incurred loan debts for its produce business that with overdrafts totaled $ 23,000,000. After all CACI defamation cosigners defaulted on their loans, plaintiff paid the arbitration award of $ 2.8 million on his co-signed note, sought and obtained some contribution through asset seizure but was successfully challenged by defendant bank as a senior lien holder. Defendant cosigners settled with defendant bank and satisfied plaintiff’s judgment with interest. Plaintiff filed a conspiracy claim alleging sham debts and fraudulent transfer of assets as security interests to prevent plaintiff from seeking contribution. Plaintiff appealed after summary judgment for defendant bank. The court found no trial error because plaintiff produced no real evidence in opposing summary judgment and held that prior litigation on the validity of the debt was res judicata precluding further litigation. The court held that defendant bank as a matter of law did not conspire and that plaintiff suffered no damages because his judgment was satisfied with interest.
The court affirmed summary judgment for defendant bank and cosigners because plaintiff cosigner failed to oppose the motion with evidence. Plaintiff alleged conspiracy through fraudulent transfers to prevent his seeking contribution on a defaulted bank loan. The court held that res judicata precluded plaintiff from re-litigating validity of defendant cosigners’ debts and found no damages because plaintiff’s judgment was satisfied.
Appellants, board of public service commissioners, city’s controller, auditor, and treasurer, sought review of the decision of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which granted judgment on the pleadings to appellee taxpayer. The judgment complained of was in the aggregate amount of appellee’s claims for improper expenditures by appellants in seeking to influence voters to vote in favor of issuance of certain bonds.
Appellee taxpayer filed an action against appellants, board of public service commissions, city’s controller, auditor, and treasurer, to compel repayment into the city treasury of funds appellants improperly expended for advertising and other means of influencing voters to vote in favor of the issuance of bonds to finance the extension of the city’s electrical power system. Appellants’ answer denied all the allegations, but the trial court rendered judgment on the pleadings in favor of appellee, requiring appellants to repay the funds. Appellants sought review. The court affirmed, rejecting appellants’ reliance on the provisions of the city’s charter that authorized appellants to expend funds for extension of the power system, holding that extension of the system was one thing and issuance of bonds to finance the extension was another. The court also rejected appellants’ argument that the city was acting in its proprietary, rather than governmental capacity and, therefore, its activities in that regard were to be more liberally construed. The court held that even exercise of proprietary powers did not authorize officials to do any act that was not otherwise authorized.
The court affirmed the lower court decision ordering appellant public service commissioners and the city’s controller, treasurer and auditor to repay into the city treasury those funds used to advertise and otherwise to influence voters to vote in favor of bonds to finance extension of the city’s electric power system. The court held that the city charter authorized expenditures for extension of the power system but not for the bond election.