Pinson v. Cole

California Court of Appeal Feb 24, 2003 No. B157524Published

Before: Armstrong

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A creditor lacks the legal standing to enforce a marital dissolution judgment that orders a spouse to pay the creditor's debt, as Family Code section 2023 explicitly denies creditors the right to enforce such orders.

Issues

Whether a creditor has the right to enforce a marital dissolution judgment ordering a party to pay the creditor's debt.
Whether the creditor's claim was barred by the contractual statute of limitations contained in the underlying promissory note.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The creditor has no right to enforce the order made under this section, nor are the creditor’s rights affected by the determination made under this section.”

“Pursuant to Family Code section 2023, the family law court ordered Mr. Cole to repay Mr. Pinson’s promissory note. However, the explicit terms of the statute preclude Mr. Pinson from enforcing that order.”

Opinion

ARMSTRONG, J.

Plaintiff John T. Pinson appeals the judgment entered after the trial court sustained defendant James L. Cole’s demurrer to plaintiffs first amended complaint. That complaint sought to enforce a marital dissolution judgment pursuant to which Mr. Cole was ordered to repay a debt which his ex-wife owed to Mr. Pinson. We conclude that Mr. Pinson was precluded from enforcing the subject judgment, and so affirm the trial court.

Facts

In June of 1994, Mr. Pinson loaned Mr. Cole’s then wife, Audrey Cole, $57,500. Pursuant to the terms of a promissory note executed by Mrs. Cole, the loan, which bore no interest, was to be repaid on June 15, 1997. The note further provided that “no action shall be entertained by said court or any court of competent jurisdiction if filed more than one year subsequent to the date the cause(s) of action actually accrued regardless of whether damages were otherwise as of said time calculable.”

Mr. and Mrs. Cole were married on August 8, 1981, separated on February 22, 1991, and divorced on April 15, 1996. The default judgment for

[496]

dissolution of marriage entered on that date provided, among other things, that Mr. Cole was to pay to Mr. Pinson when due the personal loan represented by the promissory note, which then had an approximate total balance of $50,000, and to hold harmless Mrs. Cole.

Neither Mr. Cole nor Mrs. Cole paid the promissory note when it matured on June 15, 1997. Mr. Pinson filed this lawsuit on March 20, 2001, stating separate causes of action against Mr. and Mrs. Cole for breach of the promissory note. Mr. Pinson specifically pled his right to recover $50,000 from Mr. Cole based on the judgment of dissolution.

Mr. and Mrs. Cole demurred to the complaint. That demurrer was sustained on the ground that the promissory note provided a one-year period to commence suit for nonpayment, which one-year period expired on June 15, 1998. The complaint, filed in March of 2001, was therefore untimely.

The trial court granted Mr. Pinson leave to amend to allege facts regarding the reasonableness of the suit limitation language of the promissory note. Thereafter, the trial court sustained a demurrer to the first amended complaint, which was essentially identical to the original, without leave to amend, and entered judgment for the Coles. Mr. Pinson appeals the judgment solely as to Mr. Cole.

Pinson v. Cole

AI Brief

ARMSTRONG, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief