In Re Carl L. Pedrazzini and Camille Pedrazzini, Bankrupt. Jack C. Runnion v. Carl L. Pedrazzini and Camille Pedrazzini

Good Law
644 F.2d 756·24 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 363·24 Collier Bankr. Cas. 363·7 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 1167·1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 13657
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 4, 198179-4296California1,241 words

Opinion

Opinion

Fletcher, J.

Runnion appeals the district court’s af-firmance of the bankruptcy court’s discharge of the bankrupt Pedrazzini’s debt to Runnion. Jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

Carl Pedrazzini, a swimming pool contractor, contracted with Runnion to build a swimming pool on Runnion’s property. The contract provided for progress payments to be made as the work was completed.

On May 23, 1974, Pedrazzini’s superintendent called Runnion demanding that the final progress payment be made as a condition to further work. Runnion sent his check for the progress payment. A few days later, Runnion learned from one of Pedrazzini’s subcontractors that Pedrazzini was having trouble paying his bills. Runn-ion called the superintendent, who assured him that there was no problem.

Pedrazzini declared bankruptcy shortly afterwards. Two subcontractors filed mechanic’s liens against Runnion’s property. Runnion settled those claims and paid to have the pool completed, at a cost approximating the amount of the last progress payment.

In the bankruptcy court, Runnion unsuccessfully sought ■ to bar the discharge of Pedrazzini’s contractual obligations. Runn-ion relied on Bankruptcy Act section…

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.