In Re: Charlotte Dial

Good Law
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaJuly 9, 20202:20-cv-02001California4,845 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. Factual and Procedural Background

A. The Stipulated Judgment Against Breeze In 1987, Breeze and her then-husband Dick Dial filed bankruptcy pursuant to Chapter 7, and Westpac filed an adversary proceeding to prevent the discharge of a judgment1 it had previously The original judgment was for $43,303.00. obtained against Breeze in Los Angeles Superior Court. Westpac and Breeze subsequently resolved the adversary proceeding and entered into a Stipulation and Agreement (“Stipulation”) on August 15, 1988. In the Stipulation, the parties agreed that Westpac would accept $15,000.00 in satisfaction of the judgment and that Breeze would make payments of $250.00 per month to Westpac and would advise Westpac of any changes of address. On August 8, 1989, the Bankruptcy Court entered a Judgment Pursuant to Written Stipulation (“Stipulated Judgment”) for $15,052.50 in favor of Westpac. The Stipulated Judgment was renewed on March 24, 1999.

After the Stipulated Judgment was entered, Breeze admits that, without giving notice to Westpac, she remarried and traveled to Canada and Switzerland with her new husband. Breeze also admits that she did not make any payments on 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.