Wax

Wax v. Infante

Good Law
145 Cal. App. 3d 1029·194 Cal. Rptr. 14·1983 Cal. App. LEXIS 2043
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 15, 1983Civ. 68278California651 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kingsley, J.

This is the second installment of the dispute between the parties over an alleged debt owed by defendants to plaintiff. That dispute was purportedly settled by an agreement under which defendants executed a confession of judgment in favor of plaintiff. Plaintiff sued and recovered judgment on that confession. Defendants moved to set aside that judgment and the motion was denied. On appeal, this court reversed the order, holding that the confession of judgment was void as in violation of subdivision (b) of section 1132 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (Wax v. Infante (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 138 [ 187 Cal.Rptr. 686 ].)

While that appeal was pending in this court, defendants brought a second motion in the trial court, alleging that it was based on newly discovered evidence not available at the time of the first motion. The trial court held that there was no new evidence and that the second motion was a mere attempt to reconsider the first ruling, then on appeal. The court both denied the second motion and assessed against defendants and their then attorney a penalty, under section 907 of the Code of Civil Procedure, of $900. That sum was paid to plaintiff by a check from…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.