Taliaferro v. Taliaferro

California Court of Appeal Aug 22, 1956 No. Civ. 16737Published

Before: Peters

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action for equitable relief or damages because he possessed a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law under Code of Civil Procedure section 675 and Civil Code sections 1499 and 1500.

Issues

Whether a plaintiff may seek equitable relief in the form of a mandatory injunction when a statutory legal remedy exists.
Whether the complaint sufficiently alleged a cause of action for damages arising from the defendants' refusal to accept payment of a judgment.
Whether the trial court erred in sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The complaint does not allege a cause of action for equitable relief for the reason that a plain, speedy and adequate remedy is provided by statute.”

“There is no need to create such new remedies where the remedies at law are adequate.”

“If any damage has been suffered by plaintiff it is wholly due to his own conduct in not taking the proper procedural steps to obtain entry of a satisfaction of the judgment.”

PETERS, P. J.

The plaintiff, E. A. Taliaferro, brought an action against his ex-wife and her attorney for a “manda

[111]

tory injunction and accrued damages.” The defendants demurred, generally. The demurrer was sustained without leave to amend. Judgment was entered in favor of defendants. Plaintiff, in propria persona, appeals.

The complaint alleges that on July 26, 1954, defendant Dorothy Taliaferro secured a judgment against plaintiff in Contra Costa County; that as a result of that judgment defendants are claiming a lien against all of plaintiff’s property in Contra Costa County; that since July 26, 1954, the plaintiff has placed a sum of money, unspecified as to amount, “in escrow with the Contra Costa Title Company with instructions to apply said sum against the payment of the judgment . . . and for the release of the judgment lien filed and claimed by the defendants”; that since such deposit “defendants have been repeatedly notified that said sum of money was on deposit for their benefit and would be immediately paid over to them upon deposit in escrow by them of releases of their claimed liens against plaintiff’s properties and delivery by them of satisfaction of judgment commensurate with any sums paid”; that defendants have refused to deposit into escrow any releases of liens or satisfactions of judgment ; that such refusal is wilful, malicious and oppressive to plaintiff; that by reason of the refusal of defendants to accept payments and to issue releases the plaintiff has been impeded in his business, has suffered loss of credit and of business, and has suffered humiliation, loss of reputation, and nervous disability; that plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. The prayer is for a mandatory injunction requiring the defendants “to place in escrow releases of all claimed liens and a satisfaction of judgment commensurate with the amount of money paid to them at the time of the deposit of said instruments,” and for compensatory damages of $10,000 and punitive damages of $20,000.

The complaint does not allege a cause of action for equitable relief for the reason that a plain, speedy and adequate remedy is provided by statute. Section 675 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides, in part; “. . . Whenever a judgment is satisfied in fact, otherwise than upon an execution, the party or attorney must give such acknowledgment, or make such endorsement, and,

Taliaferro v. Taliaferro

AI Brief

PETERS, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief