Harris

Harris v. Croce

Good Law
158 Cal. App. 4th 430
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 11, 2007No. E040674California3,861 words

Opinion

dissent Opinion

Ramirez, J.

Today the majority holds that the trial court erred when it ordered that respondent Louise Croce (Croce) obtain the amount of $239,129.54 by writ of execution against appellant Sydney Lowe Harris (Harris), with directions that she forward any amounts so obtained to her judgment creditors, the Munarettos, within two weeks of any payment. It concludes that this was error because the trial court was first required to perform a factual analysis under title 11 United States Code section 523 (a)(15), and remands the case to the trial court to engage in that examination. Given the state of the record presented by appellant and the proper role of this court, I cannot agree with this decision. Therefore, I dissent.

On appeal Harris raises four arguments in support of his claim that the trial court committed reversible error. They include: (1) despite his failure to list his obligation to Croce in his bankruptcy papers, the bankruptcy discharged that obligation; (2) Croce has not been damaged, therefore she has no right to indemnity; (3) because his debt to Croce was discharged by the bankruptcy, she is enjoined by statute from seeking to recover on that debt; and (4) because his debt to…

lead Opinion

Gaut, J.

1. Introduction

In May 1994 Sydney Lowe Harris and Louise Croce terminated their marriage, agreed that spousal support would be waived, and that Harris would hold Croce harmless from the obligation of the community to pay Mike D. Munaretto and Carol E. Munaretto in connection with a debt totaling $140,000 at the time but which has increased to over $230,000. In October 1999, Harris filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy petition listing the Munarettos as unsecured creditors but did not include Croce as a creditor. Harris did not notify Croce of his petition.

On February 1, 2000, Harris was granted a discharge of his debts under section 727 of the Bankruptcy Code ( 11 U.S.C. § 727 ). Harris never did include Croce in the bankruptcy petition and did not tell her that his obligation to the Munarettos had been discharged in bankruptcy.

*433 In 2002, Croce purchased a home but was unaware of the Munaretto judgment until November 2004, when she received an application for renewal of the judgment from the Munarettos.

This proceeding was begun by Croce as a law and motion matter seeking an order modifying the spousal dissolution judgment to order Harris to hold her harmless from the…

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.