In Alberding v. Brunzell (9th Cir. 1979) 601 F.2d 474, there were four co-sureties on a promissory note and one surety (Alberding) was required to pay the entire guaranteed amount. Alberding then sued one of the other sureties (Brunzells) in Brunzells' home state of Nevada, but the trial court ordered that the Brunzells were only required to pay their one-fourth share of the obligation. (Id. at pp. 475-476.) The Alberding court affirmed, but it also recognized that "although generally a cosurety is not liable for more than his prorata share of the debt, the rule has been repeatedly stated that if some of the cosureties are insolvent or beyond the jurisdiction of the court, they will be excluded from the calculation and the entire burden distributed among the ones remaining. The justification for this approach seems to be that if one surety has paid more than his share, it is unfair to place on him the full burden of pursuing all the other cosureties." (Id. at p. 478.) Indeed, while Alberding recognized that "the vast majority of cases and commentators assert without qualification that absent cosureties are to be excluded from the calculation" (ibid.) in such a contribution action, Alberding departed from the general rule and upheld the trial court's exercise of discretion on the facts and circumstances applicable to that case.