Merlet

Merlet v. Rizzo

Good Law
1998 Cal. App. LEXIS 454·64 Cal. App. 4th 53·75 Cal. Rptr. 2d 83·98 Daily Journal DAR 5333·98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3866
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 21, 1998A078552California3,928 words

Opinion

Opinion

Lambden, J.

Attorneys Ralph A. Rizzo (Rizzo) and Lawrence D. Miller (Miller) represented Harry Allen (Allen) in a tort action which resulted in a judgment for Allen against Claudette Merlet (Claudette). Rizzo and Miller later applied to the court to issue a writ of sale against a property owned by Claudette’s husband, Robert J. Merlet (Robert). Robert was successful in defeating this writ application, and he subsequently filed a complaint against Rizzo, Miller, and Allen (collectively, respondents) for malicious prosecution and abuse of process. The trial court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend against his complaint, and he appeals from the order dismissing his claims. We uphold the trial court’s ruling.

Background

Allen obtained á default judgment against Claudette for approximately $260,000 in December 1991. Allen applied for and received an order for sale of Claudette’s one-half interest in her home, but the money from the sale of the home was insufficient to satisfy the judgment. Thereafter the United States Bankruptcy Court granted Claudette a discharge in bankruptcy.

On November 6, 1995, Allen, through his attorneys Rizzo and Miller, moved the court for an order…

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.