Twyford

Twyford v. Twyford

Good Law
134 Cal. Rptr. 145·1976 Cal. App. LEXIS 2139·63 Cal. App. 3d 916
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 5, 1976Civ. 15693California4,910 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Paras, J.

Plaintiff Kenneth Twyford (hereinafter “husband”) appeals from a judgment dismissing his $150,000 complaint for malicious prosecution, abuse of process and defamation, against his former wife Vemie Twyford (hereinafter “wife”) and her two attorneys. The complaint alleges that wife and her attorneys falsely accused husband of a felony, to wit, forging wife’s name on a joint income tax refund check, thereby absconding with her half of the proceeds in the sum of $87.60.

*920 The “accusation” of . which husband complains was contained in a “Request for Admissions” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033) filed by wife’s attorneys in the dissolution action after the final decree; 1 it was done in connection with wife’s efforts to have husband held in contempt for allegedly failing to pay attorney fees, spousal support and certain sums of money;

Husband neither admitted nor denied the request for admissions, but rather filed a motion to strike it on the ground that it was irrelevant to the pending contempt proceedings. The declaration initiating the contempt proceedings made no mention of any income tax refund.

Prior to the contempt hearing, wife’s attorneys notified the court by letter…

Concurring Opinion

Friedman, J.

I concur in the opinion and judgment. I would impose sanctions upon counsel for plaintiff. The lawsuit and the appeal are frivolous. They constitute a gross imposition on our overcrowded courts and upon the taxpayers who maintain these courts.

Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied December 29, 1976.

Opinion

Plaintiff Kenneth Twyford (hereinafter "husband") appeals from a judgment dismissing his $150,000 complaint for malicious prosecution, abuse of process and defamation, against his former wife Vernie Twyford (hereinafter "wife") and her two attorneys. The complaint alleges that wife and her attorneys falsely accused husband of a felony, to wit, forging wife's name on a joint income tax refund check, thereby absconding with her half of the proceeds in the sum of $87.60.

The "accusation" of which husband complains was contained in a "Request for Admissions" (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033) filed by wife's attorneys in the dissolution action after the final decree; [1] it was done in connection with wife's efforts to have husband held in contempt for allegedly failing to pay attorney fees, spousal support and certain sums of money.

Husband neither admitted nor denied the request for admissions, but rather filed a motion to strike it on the ground that it was irrelevant to the pending contempt proceedings. The declaration initiating the contempt proceedings made no mention of any income tax refund.

Prior to the contempt hearing, wife's attorneys notified the court by…

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.