Hillgren v. Tarnutzer CA4/3

Filed 3/6/26 Hillgren v. Tarnutzer CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

MARK J. HILLGREN,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G064367

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2021- 01203469) RICK TARNUTZER, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Thomas S. McConville, Judge. Affirmed. Law Offices of Sheldon J. Fleming and Sheldon J. Fleming for Plaintiff and Respondent. Ferguson Braswell Fraser Kubasta and George L. Hampton for Defendant and Appellant. * * *

This appeal arises from a judgment after a jury trial on a breach

of contract claim. Mark Hillgren brought suit on an oral contract to repay a loan. Defendant Rick Tarnutzer acknowledged that he borrowed money from Hillgren, but claimed the oral contract between the two former friends did not include a promise to pay interest. The jury disagreed and awarded Hillgren $130,000 in principal and $255,811.11 in interest. Standing in equity, the court awarded the same amount on an unjust enrichment claim. Tarnutzer appealed. His primary contention on appeal is that he breached the contract in 2006, yet Hillgren waited until 2021 to file suit, long after the statute of limitations had passed. This argument comes down to a disagreement about the terms of the oral contract. Hillgren testified that the $130,000 (plus interest) was not due until Tarnutzer paid off an earlier loan of $300,000, which he did in 2020. Tarnutzer, on the other hand, contends that the cause of action for the $130,000 accrued when the $300,000 came due in 2006 without being paid. Ultimately, because there was a factual dispute about the terms of the contract, we credit the evidence in favor of the judgment that the $130,000 was not due until the earlier loan was actually paid. Accordingly, the $130,000 loan came due in 2020, and the 2021 lawsuit was timely. Tarnutzer further contends that the court’s alternate verdict on a theory of unjust enrichment must be reversed because no such cause of action exists. However, because we affirm the breach of contract verdict, we need not reach this issue. Finally, Tarnutzer contends it was error to admit evidence of his wealth. We conclude that any error was harmless. Accordingly, we affirm.