Fitzgerald v. Herzer

California Court of Appeal Feb 17, 1947 No. Civ. 15573Published

Before: Wilson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A default judgment based on allegations of wanton, reckless, and grossly careless conduct constitutes a liability for 'willful and malicious' injury, which is not dischargeable in bankruptcy. The court must look behind the judgment to the original complaint to determine the nature of the liability, and a default judgment is res judicata as to all issues pleaded.

Issues

Whether a default judgment for personal injuries resulting from reckless and wanton conduct is dischargeable in bankruptcy.
Whether a court may examine the record of a prior action to determine if a judgment debt is excepted from bankruptcy discharge.
Whether a default judgment is res judicata as to the allegations of conduct contained in the original complaint.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Whether a judgment is cancelled by a discharge in bankruptcy depends on the nature and character of the liability for which it was recovered.”

“The terminology in the complaint is the equivalent of “willful and malicious” as used in the Bankruptcy Act.”

“A judgment by default is as conclusive as to the issues tendered by the complaint as if it had been rendered after answer filed and trial had on allegations denied by the answer.”

WILSON, J.

The question presented by this appeal is whether defendant’s discharge in bankruptcy released him

[129]

from a judgment in a personal injury action in which plaintiff’s injuries were the result of his grossly careless and reckless conduct.

Plaintiff commenced an action against defendant to recover damages for injuries that she received when struck by an automobile driven by him. The complaint alleged that he drove his automobile “at a fast, furious, reckless and dangerous rate of speed, in a grossly careless, reckless and unlawful manner, and at an illegal rate of speed”; that he drove “negligently, carelessly and recklessly,” and that plaintiff’s injuries were “due to the wanton, gross carelessness, recklessness and negligence of said defendant.”

Defendant suffered his default to be entered and a judgment was rendered against him on May 17, 1944, for the sum of $7,500 and costs. The judgment recited that he had been regularly served with process, had failed to answer, was not in the military service of the United States, and that his default had been entered.

On December 12, 1944, defendant filed his petition in bankruptcy and schedules in the District Court of the United States. In the schedule of creditors whose claims were unsecured he listed the judgment, together with plaintiff’s name as the holder of the claim, and she was notified in the manner required by law. On or about April 12, 1945, defendant received his discharge in bankruptcy.

Thereafter, plaintiff brought this action on the judgment seeking a new judgment for the amount thereof, with interest. The complaint alleged the rendition of the judgment in the former action and that it was on a cause of action for damages suffered by her for personal injuries “proximately caused by defendant through his willful, wanton and grossly careless conduct, under circumstances manifesting an utter disregard of the rights of plaintiff by defendant. ’ ’

On motion of defendant the latter allegation was stricken from the complaint. He then answered pleading his discharge in bankruptcy.

At the trial the complaint and the judgment in the former action were offered by plaintiff and received in evidence. The facts relating to defendant’s bankruptcy as above set forth were stipulated to be true.

Fitzgerald v. Herzer

AI Brief

WILSON, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief