Buffington v. Ohmert

Decision Date07 August 1967
Citation61 Cal.Rptr. 360,253 Cal.App.2d 254
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesJudy BUFFINGTON, Plaintiff, v. Bonnie L. OHMERT, Defendant and Appellant, Richard Ohmert, Defendant and Respondent. Civ. 30428.

Bonnie L. Ohmert, in pro. per.

Edward J. Skelly, North Hollywood, for defendant and respondent Richard Ohmert.

JEFFERSON, Associate Justice.

Defendant Bonnie Ohmert appeals from a judgment in favor of her codefendant husband Richard Ohmert, and against her (with her consent), in an action brought by her mother Judy Buffington (who does not appeal). The latter alleged that the defendants, then in the process of securing a divorce, had borrowed money from her on three separate occasions between the years 1951 and 1958, and had not repaid it. Mrs. Ohmert admitted liability; Mr. Ohmert denied any indebtedness. He asserted that the funds advanced were gifts; that even if held to be loans, recovery was barred by the statute of limitations. In finding in favor of Mr. Ohmert, the trial court concluded that the statute of limitations was a good defense.

Initially, the question is raised whether Mrs. Ohmert has standing to bring this appeal. Is she a 'party aggrieved' by the judgment within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure, section 938? A 'party aggrieved' is one who has an interest recognized by law in the subject matter of the judgment and whose interest is injuriously afffected by the judgment. (Danielson v. Stokes, 214 Cal.App.2d 234, 237, 29 Cal.Rptr. 489.)

Mrs. Ohmert had a right of contribution which was cut off by the judgment in favor of her codefendant husband. Civil Code, section 1432 provides: 'A party to a joint, or joint and several obligation, who satisfies more than his share of the claim against all, may require a proportionate contribution from all the parties joined with him.' Since the judgment in favor of her husband deprived her of this right, Mrs. Ohmert is aggrieved.

The rule alluded to by Mr. Ohmert, that a defendant who is individually liable is not aggrieved by the exoneration of a codefendant (Du Frene v. Kaiser Steel Corp., 231 Cal.App.2d 452, 455, 41 Cal.Rptr. 834), applies to joint tortfeasors whose right of contribution is strictly limited, coming into existence only after a money judgment has been rendered jointly against them. (Guy F. Atkinson Co. v. Consani, 223 Cal.App.2d 342, 35 Cal.Rptr. 750; Code Civ.Proc. §§ 875-- 880 (enacted in 1957).) Unless and until that event occurs, no right exists between joint tortfeasors. But here, the right exists prior to and quite apart from the judgment.

We have examined all of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • County of Alameda v. Carleson
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • September 21, 1971
    ...at p. 509, 77 P. 1109; see Leoke v. County of San Bernardino, 249 Cal.App.2d 767, 770--771, 57 Cal.Rptr. 770; Buffington v. Ohmert, 253 Cal.App.2d 254, 255, 61 Cal.Rptr. 360.) Appellant's interest 'must be immediate, pecuniary, and substantial and not nominal or a remote consequence of the ......
  • T'Bear v. Forman
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • February 6, 2019
    ...on demand are deemed payable at their inception, and the statute begins to run from such time," Buffington v. Ohmert , 253 Cal. App. 2d 254, 256, 61 Cal.Rptr. 360 (Cal. Ct. App. 1967). Under Delaware law, the statute of limitations is six years. 10 Del. C. § 8109 ("When a cause of action ar......
  • Sorge v. Gaasterland
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • January 12, 2011
    ...loans payable on demand are deemed payable at their inception, and the statute begins to run from such time." (Buffington v. Ohmert (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 254, 256; see also Tabata v. Murane (1944) 24 Cal.2d 221, 226 ["the obligation to repay would have arisen instanter upon advancement of t......
  • Winzler & Kelly v. Superior Court
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • May 22, 1975
    ...15 Cal.App.3d 137, 141, 92 Cal.Rptr. 809; Bartneck v. Dunkin, supra, 1 Cal.App.3d 58, 61--62, 81 Cal.Rptr. 428; Buffington v. Ohmert, 253 Cal.App.2d 254, 255, 61 Cal.Rptr. 360; Guy F. Atkinson Co. v. Consani, supra, 223 Cal.App.2d 342, 344--345, 35 Cal.Rptr. 750; Thornton v. Luce, supra, 20......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT