Kunnen v. Kunnen
Defendants and appellants Beverly Kunnen and Robert Kunnen appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff and respondent Frank Kunnen[1]following a bench trial in which the trial court found defendants owed Frank $12,000 plus interest, attorney fees and costs under a February 1988 promissory note providing it was payable "upon completion" of a certain property development project. On appeal, defendants challenge the trial court's factual findings and legal conclusions, particularly its finding that the statute of limitations did not bar Frank's action. They further contend the court applied the wrong standard in ruling on their motion for judgment at the close of plaintiffs' evidence and it should have denied Frank relief because he did not admit the original promissory note into evidence. Court affirm.
Comments on Kunnen v. Kunnen