Skip to main content

Finalco, Inc. v. Roosevelt

Citations

  • 235 Cal. App. 3d 1301
  • 3 Cal. Rptr. 2d 865
  • 16 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 143
  • 286 Cal. Rptr. 616
  • 91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8573
  • 91 Daily Journal DAR 13196
  • 1991 Cal. App. LEXIS 1216
  • 1991 WL 211200

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that no apportionment of attorney's fees was necessary when party sought to recover on a promissory note and defended against an attack on the validity of the note under federal securities law
  • “California law is settled that a borrower’s obligation to pay attorneys’ fees incurred in the collection of the note includes attorneys’ fees incurred in defending against a challenge to the underlying validity of the obligation.”
  • “California law is settled that a borrower’s obligation to pay attorneys’ fees incurred in the collection of the note includes attorneys’ fees incurred in defending against a challenge to the underlying validity of the obligation.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Johnson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

12 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Finalco, Inc. v. Roosevelt

4 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.