![]() ![]() The doctrine has been expanded to bar fugitives from seeking relief as plaintiffs in civil suits, concluding that disentitlement in criminal cases “should apply with greater force in civil cases where an individual’s liberty is not at stake.” The court held that the bench warrants issued by the bankruptcy court and the indictment stemmed from the debtors’ attempt to escape the bankruptcy judgments and that the defendants’ blatant disregard for the authority of the judicial system rendered them ineligible to pursue an appeal from the orders they were flouting.Īs indicated, the disentitlement doctrine has come up in a few receivership cases. The trustee moved to dismiss the debtors’ appeal of the involuntary based on the fugitive disentitlement doctrine, which provides that a fugitive should not be able to exploit judicial resources to his or her advantage in one matter while scoffing at them in another. They were later arrested with 200 pieces of jewelry, including the two rings, and were indicted for bankruptcy fraud and money laundering. The court ultimately issued bench warrants for their arrest and they fled. They refused to appear at scheduled hearings and refused to turn over the rings. The court issued an order to show cause why sanctions, including incarceration, should not be imposed, and the debtors continue to defy the court. They were ordered to pay a monetary sanction and again ordered to turn over the rings and refused to comply. In the case, the bankruptcy court had ordered the debtors to turn over two large diamond rings, but they refused to do so. 2013), the debtors appealed the involuntary bankruptcy filed against them. In the bankruptcy case, In Re Mastro, _ B.R. The court finally noted that the disentitlement doctrine has been applied in a number of cases in which a judgment debtor seeks to frustrate or obstruct legitimate efforts to enforce a judgment, including receivership actions. ![]() The court stated that the basis for this inherent power is that a “party to an action cannot, with right or reason, ask the aid and assistance of a court in hearing his demands while he stands in an attitude of contempt to legal orders and processes of this state.” The court also held that the fact that the orders being violated were issued by a New York court did not matter because it was trying to enforce a judgment from California and, even if it were not, the New York orders should be given full faith and credit and treated no different than ones entered in California. ![]() An appellate court may dismiss an appeal where there has been willful disobedience of a lower court’s orders or obstructive tactics. It also held that no formal judgment of contempt is required. The court of appeal held that it had the inherent power, under the disentitlement doctrine, to dismiss an appeal by a party that refuses to comply with a lower court order. Because of the defendants’ non-compliance with and contempt of the New York orders, the plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the defendants’ appeal. The defendants did not comply with either the subpoena or a later court order compelling them to respond, and the trial court in New York held the defendants in contempt. The plaintiff obtained a sister state judgment in New York and served the defendants with a subpoena seeking financial information. Ampton Investments, Inc., et al., 215 Cal App 4th 1225 (2013), an individual and a corporate defendant appealed a California judgment but did not post a bond to stay enforcement of the judgment. Indeed, two very recent cases, one from the California Court of Appeal and the other from a bankruptcy court in Washington, both discuss the “disentitlement doctrine,” which provides that an appellate court has the inherent power to dismiss an appeal by a party who refuses to comply with a lower court order. Given the defendant’s conduct, is there an argument that his appeal should be dismissed because he has refused to comply with the lower court’s orders?ĪNSWER: Yes. ![]() Because of the defendant’s conduct, at my request, the court issued an order to show cause why the defendant should not be held in contempt. The defendant has also repeatedly violated the injunction issued along with my appointing order and has refused to turn over or account for receivership property. The defendant has appealed my order of appointment. QUESTION: I have been appointed receiver in a case involving contentious litigation over a business. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |