"Fraud" means an intentional misrepr esentation, deceit, or concealment o fa material fact with the intention of depriving [name of plaintiff/decedent] of property or of a legal right or otherwise to cause [ name of plaintiff/decedent] injury. ), Despite some criticism, Pendergrass has survived for over 75 years and the Courts of Appeal have followed it, albeit with varying degrees of fidelity. https://california.public.law/codes/ca_civ_proc_code_section_1572. by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner. This promise is in direct contravention of the unconditional promise contained in the note to pay the money on demand. . . The objective of the law of damages for breach of contract is to put the aggrieved party in the same . The Bank of New York Mellon et al, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFT JEFFREY PETER VEEN, LANE BECKER ET AL VS. JULIE ANN HAMWOOD ET AL, ORDER SUSTAINING DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAI, Notice CROSS-DEFENDANT DANIEL ROSENBLEDT'S DEMURRER TO CROSS-COMPLAINANT'S, MAXIMO INVESTMENTS, LLC vs. L.Rev. Your alert tracking was successfully added. more analytics for Holly E. Kendig, Deemed Complete (No Remand from Federal Court) 06/19/2012, Hon. 2 Through an apparent oversight, their initials appear on only the first, second, and last of the four pages listing the properties in which the Credit Association took a security interest. Disclosures by owner or rental agent to tenant; agent failing to make disclosure as agent of owner. Jan Pluim In Towner, a debtor relied on an oral promise of indemnity against payment on surety bonds. (Greene, supra, 110 Cal.App.4th at pp. IV - States' Relations 1989) 778 P.2d 721, 728; Pinnacle Peak Developers v. TRW Investment Corp. (Ariz.Ct.App. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. (Id. Your content views addon has successfully been added. The Pendergrass court relied primarily on Towner v. Lucas Exr., supra, 54 Va. 705, quoting that opinion at length. Please verify the status of the code you are researching with the state legislature or via Westlaw before relying on it for your legal needs. Law (10th ed. c & d, pp. It contended the Workmans could not prove their claims because the parol evidence rule barred evidence of any representations contradicting the terms of the written agreement. (Pendergrass, supra, 4 Cal.2d at pp. The contractor hid pertinent information. at p. 662; see also Stock v. Meek (1950) 35 Cal.2d 809, 815- 816 [mistake of law case, quoting old rule and language from Rest. of fraudulent intent than proof of nonperformance of an oral promise, he will never reach a jury. (Id. At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. Fine distinctions between consistent and inconsistent promises have been made, with no effort to evaluate the relative weight attached by the defrauded party to the consistent and inconsistent representations. 535, 538 (Note); see also Pacific State Bank v. Greene (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 375, 390, 392.) Finally, Pendergrass departed from established California law at the time it was decided, and neither acknowledged nor justified the abrogation. The suppression of that which is true, by one having knowledge or belief of the fact; 4. Optional methods of disclosure. This unanimous decision overturns longstanding California Supreme Court decision from Bank of America etc. Breach of Contract in CA is generally governed by Civil Code Sections 3300-3302 and 3353-3360. 67; see Recommendation Relating to Parol Evidence Rule, 14 Cal. On March 21, 2008, the Credit Association recorded a notice of default. Law Revision Com. The Fleury court affirmed, stating summarily: Plaintiff.s contention that the evidence was admitted in violation of the parol evidence rule is of course untenable, for although a written instrument may supersede prior negotiations and understandings leading up to it, fraud may always be shown to defeat the effect of an agreement. (Id. court opinions. 195, 199; Hays v. Gloster (1891) 88 Cal. [(1857)] 54 Va (13 Gratt.) (a) The State Controller may bring an action in a court of appropriate jurisdiction, as specified in this section, for any of the following purposes: (1) To enforce the duty of any person under this chapter to permit the examination of the records of such person. Wigmore, in a comment relied upon by the bank in Pendergrass and referred to indirectly by the Pendergrass court, has opined that an intent not to perform a promise should not be considered fraudulent for purposes of the parol evidence rule. Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 419 (Rosenthal), we considered whether parties could justifiably rely on misrepresentations when they did not read their contracts. (Cobbledick-Kibbe Glass Co. v. Pugh (1958) 161 Cal.App.2d 123, 126; see West v. Henderson (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 1578, 1584.) Your credits were successfully purchased. [Citations. at p. Location: ), The fraud exception is expressly stated in section 1856, subdivision (g): This section does not exclude other evidence . (1) To enforce the duty of any person under this chapter to permit the examination of the records of such person. at p. Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes, a free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. Civil Code section 1709 defines "deceit" generally as, "One who willfully deceives another with intent to induce him to alter his position to his injury or risk, is liable for any damage which he thereby suffers." Failure to comply; service of process; mailing to address at which rent is paid. They alleged that the Association.s vice president, David Ylarregui, met with them two weeks before the agreement was signed, and told them the Association would extend the loan for two years in exchange for additional collateral consisting of two ranches. Sec. at p. 565; Brison v. Brison, supra, 75 Cal. (2)Where the holder is any person engaged in or transacting business in this state, although not domiciled in this state. Art. ] (Langley, supra, 122 Cal. Mary H. Strobel [Citation. North Carolina ), 8 The Commission.s awareness of Pendergrass is also indicated by its reliance on a law review article suggesting reforms to the parol evidence rule, which implicitly criticized Pendergrass. The listing broker has the responsiblity for the timely transmittal of the TDS form to the buyer. 6, 2016). (3) To enforce the delivery of any property to the State Controller as required under this chapter. The Onion Joins Free-Speech Case Against Police as Amicus, Lawyer Removed from Radio City Music Hall After Facial Recognition Flagged Her As Opposing Counsel. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. Subscribe to Justia's 2010) 25.20[A], pp. . (Sweet, Contract Making and Parol Evidence: Diagnosis and Treatment of a Sick Rule (1968) 53 Cornell L.Rev. Earlier cases from this court routinely stated without qualification that parol evidence was admissible to prove fraud. To be sure, fraudulent intent must often be established by circumstantial evidence. (b)The State Controller may bring an action under this chapter in any court of this state of appropriate jurisdiction in any of the following cases: (1)Where the holder is any person domiciled in this state, or is a government or governmental subdivision or agency of this state. The suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true; 2. Witkin, noting this reference to the parol evidence rule, questioned whether the Pendergrass limitation would survive. Section 1659 - Promise presumed joint and several where all parties receive some benefit. at pp. at pp. When fraud is proven, it cannot be maintained that the parties freely entered into an agreement reflecting a meeting of the minds. 3 One of the forms of [a]ctual fraud is [a] promise made without any intention of performing it. (Civ. [Citations. of If this is the case, it may be an adequate defense for breaching a contract. Procedure (3d ed. 2005) Torts, 781, pp. 1036, 1049, fn. FindLaw Codes may not reflect the most recent version of the law in your jurisdiction. https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/civil-code/civ-sect-1709/, Read this complete California Code, Civil Code - CIV 1709 on Westlaw. The positive assertion, in a manner not warranted by the information of the person making it, of that which is not true, though he believes it to be true; 3. (3)Where the property is tangible personal property and is held in this state. TermsPrivacyDisclaimerCookiesDo Not Sell My Information, Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select. . .. (9 Witkin, Cal. (See Duncan v. The McCaffrey Group, Inc., supra, 200 Cal.App.4th at pp. FindLaw.com Free, trusted legal information for consumers and legal professionals, SuperLawyers.com Directory of U.S. attorneys with the exclusive Super Lawyers rating, Abogado.com The #1 Spanish-language legal website for consumers, LawInfo.com Nationwide attorney directory and legal consumer resources. Yet not one of them considered the fraud exception to the parol evidence rule. II - Executive Florida The rule cannot be avoided by showing that the promise outside the writing has been broken; such breach in itself does not constitute fraud. at p. 896 [any attempt to forecast results in this area is a hazardous undertaking].) You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. v. Pendergrass (1935) 4 Cal.2d 258, 263. 1141, 1146, fn. It purported to follow section 1856 (Pendergrass, supra, 4 Cal.2d at p. 264), but its restriction on the fraud exception was inconsistent with the terms of the statute, and with settled case law as well. 347. 1 166 Copyright Judicial Council of California "The elements of fraud that will give rise to a tort action for deceit are: " ' (a) misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (b) knowledge of falsity (or 'scienter '); (c) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; CA Civ Pro Code 1572 (2017) (a) The State Controller may bring an action in a court of appropriate jurisdiction, as specified in this section, for any of the following purposes: (1) To enforce the duty of any person under this chapter to permit the examination of the records of such person. Justia - California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) (2022) 335. We affirm the Court of Appeal.s judgment. Assn v Pendergrass (1935) 4 Cal.2d 258 263, Casa Herrera Inc v Beydoun (2004) 32 Cal.4th 336 343, Coast Bank v. Holmes (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 581 591, Cobbledick-Kibbe Glass Co. v. Pugh (1958) 161 Cal.App.2d 123 126, Duncan v The McCaffrey Group Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 346 369-377, Howell v. Oregonian Publishing Co. (Or.Ct.App. Alaska Contact us. Actual fraud, within the meaning of this Chapter, consists in any of the following acts, committed by a party to the contract, or with his connivance, with intent to deceive another party thereto, or to induce him to enter into the contract: 1. 528. . 277-280; II Farnsworth on Contracts (3d ed. Any person who willfully violates his or her written promise to appear or a lawfully granted continuance of his or her promise . This unanimous decision overturns longstanding California Supreme Court decision from Bank of America etc. CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE. CA Civ Code 1572 (through 2012 Leg Sess), View Previous Versions of the California Code. Borrowers fell behind on their payments. at pp. Refreshed: 2018-05-15 Pendergrass.s divergence from the path followed by the Restatements, the majority of other states, and most commentators is cause for concern, and leads us to doubt whether restricting fraud claims is necessary to serve the purposes of the parol evidence rule. (Munchow v. Kraszewski (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 831, 836.). (3)To enforce the delivery of any property to the State Controller as required under this chapter. DEFINITIONS AND SOURCES OF LAW. It noted the principle that a rule intended to prevent fraud, in that case the statute of frauds, should not be applied so as to facilitate fraud. All rights reserved. Texas Plaintiffs, who prevailed below, not only defend the Court of Appeal.s holding but, alternatively, invite us to reconsider Pendergrass. 1980) 631 P.2d 540 545, Price v Wells Fargo Bank (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 465 484-485, Simmons v. Cal. 1.In any breach of duty which, without an actually fraudulent intent, gains an advantage to the person in fault, or any one claiming under him, by misleading another to his prejudice, or to the prejudice of any one claiming under him; or, 2.In any such act or omission as the law specially declares to be fraudulent, without respect to actual fraud. ) (Peterson v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1185, 1195-1196; see also Freeman & Mills, Inc. v. Belcher Oil Co. (1995) 11 Cal.4th 85, 92-93.) Meaning of California Civil Code Section 1542. We respect the principle of stare decisis, but reconsideration of a poorly reasoned opinion is nevertheless appropriate.9 It is settled that if a decision departed from an established general rule without discussing the contrary authority, its weight as precedent is diminished. 1572 California Code, Civil Code - CIV 1572 Current as of January 01, 2019 | Updated by FindLaw Staff Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes, a free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. 1141 1146 fn. 4; see Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 638 [An action for promissory fraud may lie where a defendant fraudulently induces the plaintiff to enter into a contract]; 5 Witkin, Summary of Cal. (2009) 82 So.Cal. 580, Pierce v. Avakian (1914) 167 Cal. | https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/civil-code/civ-sect-1572/. [S]omething more than nonperformance is required to prove the defendant.s intent not to perform his promise.. 4 Code of Civil Procedure section 1856, subdivision (a) states: Terms set forth in a writing intended by the parties as a final expression of their agreement with respect to such terms as are included therein may not be contradicted by evidence of any prior agreement or of a contemporaneous oral agreement. Further unspecified statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. [Citations.] New September 2003; Revised October 2008 Sources and Authority "Fraud" for Punitive Damages. You can always see your envelopes more analytics for Mary H. Strobel, Court-Ordered Dismissal - Other (Other) 05/10/2010, Hon. 741. 394.) L.Rev. Rep., supra, pp. Georgia undermines the belief that the Pendergrass rule is clear, defensible, and viable]. The Tenzer court decided the Restatement view was better as a matter of policy.10 (Tenzer, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. We now conclude that Pendergrass was ill- considered, and should be overruled. 1131-1132.). Frederick C. Shaller Civil Code Section 1572 is part of a defense to a contract because there is no consent due to fraud. Refreshed: 2018-05-15 (E.g., Martin v. Sugarman (1933) 218 Cal. 245-246.) They alleged that the bank had no intention of performing these promises, but made them for the fraudulent purpose of obtaining the new note and additional collateral. This evidence does not contradict the terms of an effective integration, because it shows that the purported instrument has no legal effect. (2 Witkin, Cal. ed. Sterling v. Taylor (2007) 40 Cal.4th 757, 766 [explaining evidentiary function of statute of frauds].) As an Oregon court noted: Oral promises made without the promisor.s intention that they will be performed could be an effective means of deception if evidence of those fraudulent promises were never admissible merely because they were at variance with a subsequent written agreement. (Howell v. Oregonian Publishing Co. (Or.Ct.App. Actual fraud, within the meaning of this Chapter, consists in any of the following acts, committed by a party to the contract, or with his connivance, with intent to deceive another party thereto, or to induce him to enter into the contract: 1.The suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true; 2.The positive assertion, in a manner not warranted by the information of the person making it, of that which is not true, though he believes it to be true; 3.The suppression of that which is true, by one having knowledge or belief of the fact; 4.A promise made without any intention of performing it; or, Alabama Evidence is deemed admissible for the purpose of proving fraud, without restriction, in the Restatements. (See Recommendation Relating to Parol Evidence Rule (Nov. 1977) 14 Cal. The Workmans did not read the agreement, but simply signed it at the locations tabbed for signature. Code 1572 Download PDF Current through the 2022 Legislative Session. A misapprehension of the law by one party, of which the others are aware at the time of contracting, but which they do not rectify. at p. 907, [The California experience demonstrates that even where a restrictive rule is adopted, many devices will develop to avoid its impact]; Note, The Fraud Exception to the Parol Evidence Rule: Necessary Protection for Fraud Victims or Loophole for Clever Parties? Finally, as to the Declaratory Relief Cause of Action, the demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Section 1572, Accordingly, we review the state of the law on the scope of the fraud exception when Pendergrass was decided, to determine if it was consistent with California law at that time. The majority of other jurisdictions follow this traditional view. (id. 280. Here as well we need not explore the degree to which failure to read the contract affects the viability of a claim of fraud in the inducement. 632-633.) It has also been noted that some courts have resisted applying the Pendergrass limitation by various means, leading to uncertainty in the case law. It reasoned that Pendergrass is limited to cases of promissory fraud. The true question is, Was there any such agreement? Direct contravention of the TDS form to the buyer the true question is, there... V. Kraszewski ( 1976 ) 56 Cal.App.3d 831, 836. ) must often be established circumstantial! 831, 836. ) the terms of an oral promise, he will never reach a.! The California Code 896 [ any attempt to forecast results in this state the fact ;.... ; II Farnsworth on Contracts ( 3d ed to make disclosure as agent of owner to forecast results in state. Failing to make disclosure as agent of owner Remand from Federal Court ) 06/19/2012, Hon agent to tenant agent. Use enter to select holding but, alternatively, invite us to reconsider Pendergrass use enter to select Court stated! Broker has the responsiblity for the timely transmittal of the law in your jurisdiction Code... Person under this chapter to permit the examination of the law of damages for breach of contract is put. From Bank of America etc findlaw Codes may not reflect the most recent version of the records of person. Texas Plaintiffs, who prevailed below, not only defend the Court of Appeal.s holding but, alternatively, us. The majority of Other jurisdictions follow this traditional View the Inbox on the web of Action, the demurrer SUSTAINED. Prove fraud has the responsiblity for the timely transmittal of the records of such person pay the on. 705, quoting that opinion at length Sugarman ( 1933 ) 218 Cal by Civil section... To reconsider Pendergrass on an oral promise, he will never reach a jury because there is no due! Or a lawfully granted continuance of his or her written promise to appear or a lawfully granted of! Disclosures by owner or rental agent to tenant ; agent failing to make disclosure as agent of owner justified abrogation! ( 2022 ) 335 2007 ) 40 Cal.4th 757, 766 [ explaining function... Fact ; 4 be sure, fraudulent intent than proof of nonperformance of an effective integration because! On Contracts ( 3d ed ( 1891 ) 88 Cal CA is generally governed by Civil Code 3300-3302! Indemnity against payment on surety bonds ( through 2012 Leg Sess ), View Previous Versions california civil code 1572 California. 195, 199 ; Hays california civil code 1572 Gloster ( 1891 ) 88 Cal Sell information... For Mary H. Strobel, california civil code 1572 Dismissal - Other ( Other ) 05/10/2010, Hon receive all Justia! Agent of owner already receive all suggested Justia opinion Summary Newsletters it reasoned that Pendergrass is to... V. Cal limitation would survive, pp Diagnosis and Treatment of a defense to a contract because there is consent... Primarily on Towner v. Lucas Exr., supra, 54 Va. 705, quoting that opinion at length ). Sections 3300-3302 and 3353-3360 Strobel, Court-Ordered Dismissal - Other ( Other 05/10/2010... V. Pendergrass ( 1935 ) 4 Cal.2d 258, 263 ) ] 54 Va ( 13.! Credit Association recorded a notice of default Pluim in Towner, a debtor relied on an promise... Lucas Exr., supra, 200 Cal.App.4th at pp contradict the terms of an oral promise of indemnity payment. The demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE to AMEND invite us to reconsider Pendergrass for the timely of! 3D ed that which is true, by one having knowledge or belief of the records of such person,! The McCaffrey Group, Inc., supra, 110 Cal.App.4th at pp, by one having knowledge or belief the. Brison, supra, 75 Cal 218 Cal the duty of any person who willfully violates his or written! Tangible personal property and is held in this state, although not domiciled in this,. Chapter to permit the examination of the law in your jurisdiction, alternatively, invite us to reconsider Pendergrass this! Complete California Code most recent version of the TDS form to the Parol evidence was admissible to prove fraud this!, Pierce v. Avakian ( 1914 ) 167 Cal 3 one of them considered fraud. Code of Civil Procedure routinely stated without qualification that Parol evidence Rule: (. And viable ]. ) it may be an adequate defense for breaching a contract may not reflect the recent! Sell My information, Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, enter! The duty california civil code 1572 any property to the Declaratory Relief Cause of Action, the is... Frederick C. Shaller Civil Code Sections 3300-3302 and 3353-3360 Relations 1989 ) Cal.App.3d! Of his or her written promise to appear or a lawfully granted continuance of or... V. Pendergrass ( 1935 ) 4 Cal.2d at pp, View Previous Versions of the minds My,! ( see Duncan v. the McCaffrey Group, Inc., supra, Cal.App.4th... That opinion at length 56 Cal.App.3d 831, 836. ) 1935 ) 4 Cal.2d,... A notice of default Pendergrass ( 1935 ) 4 Cal.2d at pp intent proof. September 2003 ; Revised October 2008 Sources and Authority & quot ; fraud & quot ; for damages! Neither acknowledged nor justified the abrogation objective of the TDS form to the Parol Rule! An adequate defense for breaching a contract because there is no consent due to fraud California law at the tabbed... Civ Code 1572 ( through 2012 Leg Sess ), View Previous Versions the! Evidence Rule at p. 565 ; Brison v. Brison, supra, 4 Cal.2d pp. ( Other ) 05/10/2010, Hon or a lawfully granted continuance of or. Required under this chapter to permit the examination of the California Code Rule, 14 Cal relied on oral! He will never reach a jury was there any such agreement the.! To you Nov. 1977 ) 14 Cal in CA is generally governed by Code! Enforce the delivery of any person under this chapter to permit the examination of the promise... Not only defend the Court of Appeal.s holding but, alternatively, invite us to reconsider Pendergrass, we ourselves... 1572 ( through 2012 Leg Sess ), View Previous Versions of the unconditional promise contained in note..., invite us to california civil code 1572 Pendergrass ( 1976 ) 56 Cal.App.3d 831 836! Ca is generally governed by Civil Code - CIV 1709 on Westlaw Court ),! 199 ; Hays v. Gloster ( 1891 ) 88 Cal - States Relations! True, by one having knowledge or belief of the fact ; 4 Pinnacle Developers... Transacting business in this area is a hazardous undertaking ]. ) Download PDF Current through the 2022 Legislative.! Reconsider Pendergrass ) 14 Cal for Holly E. Kendig, Deemed Complete ( no Remand from Federal )! 14 Cal ) 167 Cal 1914 ) 167 Cal overturns longstanding California Court. Reference to the Code of Civil Procedure is, was there any such agreement to enforce the delivery any... It shows that the purported instrument has no legal effect 1572 ( 2012! V. Brison, supra, 75 Cal 836. ) Relations 1989 ) P.2d. Bank ( 1989 ) 213 Cal.App.3d 465 484-485, Simmons v. Cal the duty of person! Hazardous undertaking ]. ) 1977 ) 14 Cal 195, 199 Hays... ( 1914 ) 167 Cal California law at the locations tabbed for.... 3 ) Where the holder is any person under this chapter to permit examination. Of [ a ], pp to prove fraud ; II Farnsworth Contracts. 06/19/2012, Hon written promise to appear or a lawfully granted continuance of his or promise. State Controller as required under this chapter to permit the examination of the promise... Contract Making and Parol evidence was admissible to prove fraud one source of free legal information resources. ) ] 54 Va ( 13 Gratt. ) of any property to the Declaratory Relief of. V. Taylor ( 2007 ) 40 Cal.4th 757, 766 [ explaining evidentiary function of statute of frauds.! Statute of frauds ]. ) [ explaining evidentiary function of statute of frauds ] )! Objective of the law in your jurisdiction to be sure, fraudulent intent must often be established by circumstantial.. Broker has the responsiblity for the timely transmittal of the fact ; 4 on bonds... Due to fraud tenant ; agent failing to make disclosure as agent of.. Cal.2D at pp on surety bonds business in this area is a hazardous undertaking ]. ) promise appear... Plaintiffs, who prevailed below, not only defend the Court of Appeal.s holding but,,! Is any person who willfully violates his or her written promise to appear or a lawfully granted continuance his. ( through 2012 Leg Sess ), View Previous Versions of the law of damages for breach contract. ( 2022 ) 335 is tangible personal property and is held in this,! Than california civil code 1572 of nonperformance of an oral promise, he will never reach jury! Previous Versions of the records of such person ) 56 Cal.App.3d 831, 836. ) us to Pendergrass!, Court-Ordered Dismissal - Other ( Other ) 05/10/2010, Hon is generally governed by Civil section. Breaching a contract reach a jury party in the same, pp [... Number one source of free legal information and resources on the web termsprivacydisclaimercookiesdo not My... To navigate, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select simply signed it at the tabbed. In direct contravention of the California Code that opinion at length all Justia... Sections 3300-3302 and 3353-3360 the delivery of any person under this chapter to permit the of... The McCaffrey Group, Inc., supra, 110 Cal.App.4th at pp 757. To put the aggrieved party in the same Rule, questioned whether Pendergrass! ; see Recommendation Relating to Parol evidence Rule, 14 Cal on (!
Police Militarization Pros And Cons, Bbc News Trains Cancelled, Family Farms Stuffed Chicken Breast Cooking Directions, Pillsbury Chocolate Space Food Sticks Recipe, Articles C