431.70.
Where cross-demands for money have existed between persons at any point in time when neither demand was barred by the statute of limitations, and an action is thereafter commenced by one such person, the other person may assert in the answer the defense of payment in that the two demands are compensated so far as they equal each other, notwithstanding that an independent action asserting the person’s claim would at the time of filing the answer be barred by the statute of limitations. If the cross-demand would otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations, the relief accorded under this section shall not exceed the value of the relief granted to
the other party. The defense provided by this section is not available if the cross-demand is barred for failure to assert it in a prior action under Section 426.30. Neither person can be deprived of the benefits of this section by the assignment or death of the other. For the purposes of this section, a money judgment is a “demand for money” and, as applied to a money judgment, the demand is barred by the statute of limitations when enforcement of the judgment is barred under Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 683.010) of Division 1 of Title 9.
Section 431.70 cannot save Defendants proposed Cross-Complaint. First, by its express terms, section 431.70 permits a defendant to assert in the answer the defense of offset. It does not authorize the filing of a cross-complaint to assert such claims. Further, where, as here, the claims being raised as an offset would otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations, the relief afforded by section 431.70 cannot exceed the relief granted to the plaintiff.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. VS PAUL GUEZ, ET AL.
22SMCV00237
Apr 06, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The language of section 431.70 and the cases discussing its interpretation and application make clear that the statute was intended to protect mutual claims existing between the same persons in the same capacities. ( Carnation Co. v. Olivet Egg Ranch (1986) 189 Cal. App. 3d 809, 821.) Applying this standard to section 431.70, the Court of Appeal in Carnation Co. v.
VICHIT TILAKAMONKUL VS VICHAI TILAKAMONKUL ET AL
BC715362
Feb 24, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The legislative history of section 431.70 suggests the Legislature intended the section to codify this principle."
ANTONIO GALINDO VS. GARY POLAKOFF AS TRUSTEE OF THE GARY AND DIANE POLAKOFF 2401
37-2012-00075741-CU-BC-SC
Oct 26, 2016
San Diego County, CA
Contract
Breach
(2002) 29 Cal.4th 189, as modified (Nov. 14, 2002) interprets section 431.70 to mean that a section 431.70 “setoff claim may only be used defensively[.]” ( Id . at 198.) The Court in Construction Protective Services, Inc.
DUNCAN MILNER VS TBWA WORLDWIDE, INC., ET AL.
19STCV29137
Jun 01, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Code of Civil Procedure section 431.70 describes the procedure to be followed in raising setoff as a defense.
HOWELL VS JONBEC CARE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
SCV-267909
Jul 14, 2021
Patrick M
Sonoma County, CA
Mar 27, 2014
Non-Jury Verdict
San Mateo County
San Mateo County, CA
Sep 28, 2018
Voluntary Dismissal
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles County, CA
Contractual Fraud (General Jurisdiction)
Commercial
Contractual Fraud
May 19, 2011
Non-Jury Verdict
San Mateo County
San Mateo County, CA
Section 431.50.
Preview
Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 03/23/2020 07:42 AM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by J. So,Deputy Clerk 1 Zein E. Obagi, Jr. (State Bar No. 264139) Hee Kim, Of Counsel (State Bar No. 275010) 2 OBAGI LAW GROUP, P.C. 811 Wilshire Blvd | Suite 1721 3 Los Angeles, CA 90017 …
Sep 28, 2018
Request for Dismissal - Before Trial not following ADR or more than 60 days since ADR 01/12/2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Mar 23, 2020
Contractual Fraud (General Jurisdiction)
4 pages
PATRICIA H. LYON, (State Bar No. 126761) MARY ELLMANN TANG, (State Bar No. 154340) KEVIN E. FUSCH (State Bar No. 255877) FRENCH LYON TANG A Professional Corporation 1990 N. California Blvd., Suite 300 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (415) 597-7800 Attorneys for Defendant EAST WEST BANK SUPERIOR COURT OF UNLIMITED JURSIDICTION STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA MAHNAZ KHAZEN, ) Case No. 18CV328954 ) ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND Plaintiff, ) AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF ) DEFENDANT EA…
May 25, 2018
Active
Santa Clara County, CA
Aug 20, 2018
Business Tort/Unfair Bus Prac Unlimited (07)
4 pages
WUUAOOLA OA San Francisco Superior Courts Information Technology Group Document Scanning Lead Sheet Apr-19-2005 3:48 pm Case Number: CGC-05-437604 Filing Date: Apr-19-2005 3:45 Juke Box: 001 Image: 01181641 ANSWER SALVATORE ARIGANELLO VS. BENJAMIN JONES et al 001001181641 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.~ WY ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (NAME AND ADORESS): TELEPHONE: Charles O. Morgan, Jr- (SBN 21320) (415) 292-8030 1 Daniel Burnham Court, …
Jan 07, 2005
San Francisco County, CA
Apr 19, 2005
CONTRACT/WARRANTY
17 pages
1 Jan A. Kopczynski, State Bar No. 201040 jak@therocklawfirm.com 2 THE ROCK LAW FIRM, INC. 3701 Sacramento Street, #455 3 San Francisco, California 94118 ELECTRONICALLY Tel: 800.593.6540 4 …
Mar 04, 2019
San Francisco County, CA
Oct 18, 2021
CONTRACT/WARRANTY
4 pages
ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California 1 Timothy J. Trager, State Bar No. 145419 County of Santa Barbara Meghan K. Woodsome, State Bar No. 272459 Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer 2 …
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
Your content views addon has successfully been added.
No Worries!
Adding your team is easy
in the "Manage Company Users" tab
