Stevens v. Stevens
Filed 3/28/06 Stevens v. Stevens CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
| EDWARD STEVENS, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHARLES SCOTT STEVENS, Defendant and Appellant. | B183664 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PC026170) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael J. Farrell, Judge. Affirmed.
Law Office of Sandee L. Chadwick, Sandee L. Chadwick; Carlson and Cohen and Robert J. Carlson for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
introduction
Defendant Charles Scott Stevens (Charles) appeals from a judgment after court trial in favor of plaintiff Edward Stevens (Edward) in this action to collect money owed on a promissory note. Charles contends on appeal that the applicable statute of limitations expired prior to the filing of the complaint, because payments he made to Edward were not properly applied to the promissory note so as to toll the statute of limitations. As we shall explain, we disagree and therefore affirm the judgment.
factual and procedural background
Edward is Charles's father. In April 1988, Edward loaned Charles $200,000. The loan was memorialized in a promissory note dated April 5, 1988. The loan was due and payable in full on January 5, 1990. The promissory note called for interest payments of $1,667 per month and accrual of 10 percent interest per year. Charles intended to use the money in his real estate development business. Charles testified that the transaction occurred because Edward wanted to earn some money on a monetary gift his brother gave him, and he approached Charles about investing it.
Charles made timely payments on the loan until January 1990, when it became due. Edward and Charles discussed that the note was due. According to Charles, Edward said at that time that he wished to continue to earn a profit from the money, that, in Edward's words, he wanted a â€
