Baker v. Gawthorne

California Court of Appeal Nov 20, 1947 No. Civ. 15991Published

Before: Moore

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a defendant in a malicious prosecution action cannot rely on the defense of advice of counsel when they fail to make a full and fair disclosure of all pertinent facts to their attorney and lack probable cause for the underlying action.

Issues

Whether the defendant had probable cause to initiate an unlawful detainer action based on allegations of immoral conduct.
Whether the defendant's reliance on the advice of counsel constitutes a valid defense when the defendant failed to disclose all known facts to said counsel.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Having failed fully and fairly to disclose such facts to him whose legal advice he sought, appellant was not in a position successfully to plead advice of counsel as a defense.”

“With no evidence of improper conduct on the part of respondent appellant filed his vicious complaint without probable cause.”

MOORE, P. J.

Appeal from a judgment in the sum of $1,100 awarded respondent for the malicious prosecution of an unlawful detainer action.

On March 20, 1946, the Gawthornes as owners of an apartment house in the city of Los Angeles sued respondent in the municipal court for her alleged unlawful detainer of apartment D-2 which she at that time occupied as tenant. They accused her of using the apartment for immoral purposes

[498]

and of' housing others without the owners’ consent. On April 4, 1946, the unlawful detainer action was regularly-tried, resulting in a judgment of nonsuit. By her complaint herein respondent alleged that by reason of such action the tenants in the apartment house and many other persons heard of the charges which had been made against her and that by reason thereof she had been greatly injured in her good name and reputation and had suffered humiliation and mortification to her damage in the sum of $25,000; that because of the scarcity of apartments, rooms and dwelling accommodations in the city of Los Angeles, and by reason of the filing of such action by the Gawthornes, respondent became frightened and worried at the prospect that she might not be able to obtain a fit habitation in the event of her eviction; that she became sick, nervous and sleepless and lost about 10 pounds in weight between the time of the service of the summons and the trial of the detinue action.

Judgment having gone against appellant in the instant action he now contends that the findings do not support the judgment. This attack is reinforced by the fact that two findings are ostensibly contradictory, one of which, appellant contends, exonerates him from culpable tort. Finding IV-a is as follows: “That defendants caused to be disclosed to their attorney, "William Ellis Lady, all facts of which the defendants or their agents had knowledge concerning plaintiff’s tenancy, and thereafter acting upon the advice of said attorney, said action of unlawful detainer was verified, and filed.” Because'this finding declares that defendants disclosed to their attorney all the facts of which they had knowledge "“ concerning plaintiff’s tenancy” and filed the action in reliance upon such advice, appellant contends that the judgment is without support. He cites authorities

Baker v. Gawthorne

AI Brief

MOORE, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief