D.A.N. Joint Ventures v. Champalanne
Filed 6/8/06 D.A.N. Joint Ventures v. Champalanne CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| D.A.N. JOINT VENTURES III, L. P., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MIGUEL CHAMPALANNE, Defendant and Appellant. | G035792 (Super. Ct. No. 04CC06282) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Peter J. Polos, Judge. Reversed.
Lawrence E. Hanna for Defendant and Appellant.
Brewer & Brewer, James R. Knoles and Templeton Briggs for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * *
This may simply be a case of trying to obtain summary judgment without laying the necessary foundation. In this debt collection action, the plaintiff, an assignee of a bank that loaned money ($1 million) to Stent-Cil Corporation, moved for summary judgment against a former officer of the corporation, defendant Miguel Champalanne, as owing so much on a loan guarantee supposedly signed by Champalanne. The evidence supporting the summary judgment was:
(1) The declaration of the plaintiff's custodian of records, attaching the loan guarantee and documents establishing the assignment. While the declaration qualifiedly states that Champalanne â€
