Taliaferro v. Taliaferro

California Court of Appeal Feb 18, 1960 No. Civ. 18611Published

Before: Paulsen

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a judicial finding does not constitute an enforceable obligation or adjudication unless it is incorporated into a final judgment. The complaint failed to state a cause of action because the finding relied upon was a clerical error and did not support a claim for debt.

Issues

Whether a judicial finding of fact, standing alone, creates an enforceable debt obligation.
Whether a complaint based on a finding that resulted from a clerical error states a valid cause of action.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The finding quoted in the complaint did not create an enforceable obligation.”

“A finding “ ‘do[es] not have the force and effect of an adjudication where the subject matter is not disposed of by the judgment. The force of an adjudication rests on the judgment. . . .’ ””

PAULSEN, J. pro tem.

Appeal from a judgment entered after the court sustained a general demurrer to the second amended complaint without leave to amend.

This case is another incident in the lengthy battle between these parties and is a companion to

Taliaferro

Taliaferro, ante,

p. 140 [2 Cal.Rptr. 716], just decided, which gives a more detailed history of the struggle than will be recounted here.

The complaint is in three counts. It is alleged:

“I

“That defendant is indebted to plaintiff upon a written instrument.

[147]

“II

“That said written instrument is in words and figures as follows: ‘that there was therefore due and owing from plaintiff to defendant by reason of said provisions Seventh of said written agreement the sum of $275 per month for the period commencing January 1st, 1947, and ending January 1st, 1950.’

“Ill

“That the foregoing written instrument is a part of the findings in the case of

Taliaferro

Taliaferro,

Contra Costa County Superior action number 46893 and that plaintiff Eugene A. Taliaferro herein was the defendant in said action No. 46893 and as such was the defendant named in the foregoing finding. ’ ’

In paragraph IV, it is alleged that the finding was approved by the trial judge and was thereafter approved by this court and the Supreme Court on appeal.

(Taliaferro

Taliaferro,

125 Cal.App.2d 419 [270 P.2d 1036].)

Taliaferro v. Taliaferro

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief