Henry v. Murphy CA4/3

Filed 3/29/13 Henry v. Murphy 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

DONALD L. HENRY,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G047108

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2009-00315861)

TIMOTHY MURPHY, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, David T. McEachen, Judge. Affirmed. William H. Shibley and Jonathan G. Shibley for Defendant and Appellant. Richard V. McMillian for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

Defendant Timothy Murphy appeals from a default judgment in the sum of approximately $905,000 in favor of plaintiff Donald L. Henry, claiming the complaint did not provide sufficient notice of the amount of damages plaintiff was seeking. We disagree and affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

According to the complaint, defendant represented to plaintiff he was a principal in defendant Capital Investors, Inc., a company that loaned money to transportation companies. He also represented Capital needed funds to expand and told plaintiff that for any money he loaned Capital, Capital would pay him interest of 12 percent per annum. The complaint alleged that, based on such representations, in July 2008 plaintiff entered into a written agreement to loan Capital $250,000 with interest at 12 percent per annum, payable monthly. The loan was collateralized by nine commercial installment notes with a market value of over $740,000. The loan was due and payable in four years. Four months later plaintiff loaned an additional $400,000 to Capital on the same terms. Collateral was eight commercial installment notes valued at $850,000. Plaintiff and defendant executed a separate contract for this loan. Both contracts provided that if there was default on an interest payment, repayment of principal could be accelerated. As alleged in the complaint, in June 2009 Capital’s interest payment to plaintiff was returned for insufficient funds. Pursuant to the terms of the agreements, plaintiff demanded that Capital repay the principal and pay all unpaid interest; Capital failed to do so. Plaintiff then filed the complaint against defendant, among others, for fraud. The prayer sought general and special damages according to proof, as well as punitive damages and attorney fees. Defendant filed an answer to the complaint.