Rutherford v. Holt CA2/6
The parties have a long history of litigation arising from hard money loans secured by deeds of trust. The Rutherfords contend they should have prevailed as a matter of law because (1) Holt acted with malice when he brought an action to quiet title to a lot when earlier litigation had established that he had no ownership interest in it; (2) Holt is barred from asserting any claim on the promissory note by the doctrine of res judicata because he could have litigated it in the quiet title action; and (3) the note was not supported by consideration. We conclude substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that Holt reasonably believed he had an interest in the property when he brought the quiet title action, he could not have enforced the note in the quiet title action, and the note was supported by consideration. We affirm.
Comments on Rutherford v. Holt CA2/6