“The disentitlement doctrine has been applied to a wide range of cases, including cases in which an appellant is a judgment debtor who has frustrated or obstructed legitimate efforts to enforce a judgment.” (Gwartz, supra, 231 Cal.App.4th at p. 758 [appeal dismissed where debtor made 47 transfers from his bank account to related entities and to pay expenses in violation of trial court’s order]; see, e.g., Ironridge, supra, 238 Cal.App.4th at pp. 264, 266-267 [appeal dismissed where debtor transferred stock to third parties in violation of trial court’s order]; Stoltenberg, supra, 215 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1228, 1234 [appeal dismissed where debtors were held in contempt for their violation of trial court’s order to comply with postjudgment subpoeana for financial information]; TMS, Inc. v. Aihara (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 377, 380 [appeal dismissed where debtors willfully refused to comply with trial court’s order that they respond to postjudgment interrogatories]; Stone v. Bach (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 442, 443-444, 448 [appeal dismissed after debtor held in contempt for his pretrial failure to deposit partnership receipts into a separate account and a second time for his postjudgment refusal to be sworn for a debtor examination]; Tobin v. Casaus (1954) 128 Cal.App.2d 588, 589, 592-593 (Tobin) [appeal would be dismissed within 30 days if debtor failed to appear in the trial court for his debtor examination after the trial court had issued a bench warrant for the debtor’s failure to appear at his examination]; cf. Polanski v. Superior Court (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 507, 530, 538, 550 [declining to apply fugitive disentitlement doctrine to dismiss fugitive Roman Polanski’s petition for a writ of mandate where Polanski presented evidence of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct, but concluding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in applying the doctrine to deny Polanski’s motion to dismiss the criminal prosecution].)
Wednesday, July 25, 2018
Showing appellants the door...
“The disentitlement doctrine has been applied to a wide range of cases, including cases in which an appellant is a judgment debtor who has frustrated or obstructed legitimate efforts to enforce a judgment.” (Gwartz, supra, 231 Cal.App.4th at p. 758 [appeal dismissed where debtor made 47 transfers from his bank account to related entities and to pay expenses in violation of trial court’s order]; see, e.g., Ironridge, supra, 238 Cal.App.4th at pp. 264, 266-267 [appeal dismissed where debtor transferred stock to third parties in violation of trial court’s order]; Stoltenberg, supra, 215 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1228, 1234 [appeal dismissed where debtors were held in contempt for their violation of trial court’s order to comply with postjudgment subpoeana for financial information]; TMS, Inc. v. Aihara (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 377, 380 [appeal dismissed where debtors willfully refused to comply with trial court’s order that they respond to postjudgment interrogatories]; Stone v. Bach (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 442, 443-444, 448 [appeal dismissed after debtor held in contempt for his pretrial failure to deposit partnership receipts into a separate account and a second time for his postjudgment refusal to be sworn for a debtor examination]; Tobin v. Casaus (1954) 128 Cal.App.2d 588, 589, 592-593 (Tobin) [appeal would be dismissed within 30 days if debtor failed to appear in the trial court for his debtor examination after the trial court had issued a bench warrant for the debtor’s failure to appear at his examination]; cf. Polanski v. Superior Court (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 507, 530, 538, 550 [declining to apply fugitive disentitlement doctrine to dismiss fugitive Roman Polanski’s petition for a writ of mandate where Polanski presented evidence of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct, but concluding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in applying the doctrine to deny Polanski’s motion to dismiss the criminal prosecution].)
Posts
