ZIELLO

ZIELLO v. Superior Court

Good Law
75 Cal. App. 4th 651·89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 398
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 19, 1999B133123California1,499 words

Opinion

Opinion

Epstein, J.

In this case we decide whether a judgment debtor, who pays and does not appeal the amount of a judgment for damages, but who does appeal from the trial court’s order after judgment assessing costs and attorney’s fees, is required to file an appeal bond to stay execution on the unpaid amounts. We conclude that an appeal bond is not required in this situation.

Factual and Procedural Summary

This case arises from an ongoing dispute between a mortgagor and mortgagee over proceeds from an earthquake insurance policy. The policy was obtained by the mortgagor without compulsion of the loan agreement. A more detailed discussion of the underlying facts is provided in our decision, Ziello v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 321 [ 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 251 ]. In that case we held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the mortgagee, First Federal Bank of California (Bank), and against the mortgagor, Ms. Ziello.

The litigation continued after our remittitur in that case. It was resolved by a judgment signed on October 23, 1998. By that time, Ms. Ziello had filed for bankruptcy under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Act ( 11 U.S.C. § 701 ). The court awarded her and her…

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.