 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Spencer v. Hull11/13/2002
possible financial scenarios involving Wallace which may have indicated her insolvency. However, information regarding Wallace's financial condition as it existed in 1998 was equally available to appellants as to respondent; because of the lack of any offer of proof by appellants on such matters, there is no indication in our record that additional evidence even existed which would indeed have shown that the monies in Wallace's bank account would have been unavailable to satisfy a judgment. Even now, appellants fail to bring to our attention any matters which indicate the lack of collectibility of the judgment or Wallace's insolvency in the relevant time period. (See fn. 9, ante; see also Iselin-Jefferson Financial Co. v. United California Bank (1976) 16 Cal.3d 886, 889-890 [upholding judgment against a notary public who negligently acknowledged forged signature of guarantor on a guaranty agreement, upon which plaintiff relied in purchasing accounts receivable; judgment affirmed even though at time of trial guarantor lacked assets from which judgment could have been satisfied because a judgment may be enforced for 10 years and judgment "might have had some future value"].)
Accordingly, there was substantial evidence in the record to support the trial court's findings that Wallace was receiving sufficient income in 1998 and 1999 that would have been available to satisfy a judgment. (See DiPalma v. Seldman, supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 1510.) Moreover, there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's inference and finding that Spencer's judgment would have prevailed over other expenditures by Wallace during that time period.
We find without merit appellants' claims that the trial court's findings were based on speculation and insubstantial evidence, and the court failed to account for "any judgments, admitted tax liens and other liabilities laid claim to Wallace's assets at the time." The trial court's statement of decision clearly addressed that issue; the court's inference that Spencer's judgment would have taken priority over other expenditures made by Wallace was reasonable and supported by the evidence before it.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Respondent is entitled to costs on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
MUNOZ (AURELIO), J .
We concur:
JOHNSON, ACTING P.J.
PERLUSS, J.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|