Farace

Farace v. Superior Court

Good Law
148 Cal. App. 3d 915·196 Cal. Rptr. 297·1983 Cal. App. LEXIS 2366
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 9, 1983Civ. 30691California806 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wallin, J.

This case involves a contempt hearing at which neither the contemner nor his attorney was present.

Facts

Real party in interest Hale filed an affidavit in superior court charging petitioner Farace with contempt for failure to pay child support as ordered. The superior court issued an order to show cause why Farace should not be held in contempt. The facts regarding service of the order to show cause are in dispute. Hale claims Farace was properly served by a private service using a recent photograph to identify him. Farace claims he was not at home and the papers were mistakenly served on his brother. There is no dispute the brother’s attorney informed Hale’s attorney the wrong person had been served. Farace claims to have had no actual knowledge of the contempt proceeding.

At the hearing on the order to show cause neither Farace nor his attorney was present. Hale’s attorney alleged Farace had been evading service but had finally been properly served. However, Hale’s attorney also informed the court he had been notified the wrong person had been served. The court made no finding regarding the validity of service. At the close of the hearing the court found Farace in…

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.