From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kolis v. Kolis

Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division One
May 8, 1951
104 Cal.App.2d 86 (Cal. Ct. App. 1951)

Opinion

Docket No. 18406.

May 8, 1951.

MOTION to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Motion denied.

Houston A. Snidow for Appellant.

David C. Marcus for Respondents.


This is a motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment denying a partition of real property, the appointment of a receiver and an accounting.

The record discloses that respondent Wladyslawa Lukaszewioz, the mother of respondent Genevieve Kolis, had obtained a judgment against Genevieve Kolis and her then husband Alfred Kolis upon which she caused execution to issue and at the execution sale on October 31, 1949, she bid in the property. On January 20, 1950, Alfred Kolis, who at that time was no longer the husband of Genevieve, instituted the action here involved. [1] On the trial of that action counsel for the defendants, who are here as respondents, contended that the action was not maintainable as the property had been sold on execution sale and hence Alfred and Genevieve Kolis were only equitable owners of the property and it was therefore not subject to partition. The court so ruled and dismissed the action. The ruling was palpably erroneous. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 752, 752a.)

[2] The motion to dismiss is based on the ground that the appeal is moot, sham, and frivolous and that there are no "substantial questions involved for determination by this Appellate Court." These conclusions of the pleader are not otherwise detailed or defined by the motion, except for the statement that the appeal is moot because of the statements set forth in the affidavit. The affidavit merely discloses the fact that the execution creditor purchased the property on October 31, 1949, and received a sheriff's deed of the property thus purchased under date of November 14, 1950, and the fact that the property was not redeemed. In what manner the cause of action for an accounting and the appointment of a receiver has become moot is not disclosed by the motion. We do not search the record to ascertain the facts ( Bettencourt v. Bank of Italy etc. Assn., 216 Cal. 174 [ 13 P.2d 659]).

The motion to dismiss is denied.

White, P.J., and Drapeau, J., concurred.


Summaries of

Kolis v. Kolis

Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division One
May 8, 1951
104 Cal.App.2d 86 (Cal. Ct. App. 1951)
Case details for

Kolis v. Kolis

Case Details

Full title:ALFRED KOLIS, Appellant, v. GENEVIEVE KOLIS et al., Respondents

Court:Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division One

Date published: May 8, 1951

Citations

104 Cal.App.2d 86 (Cal. Ct. App. 1951)
230 P.2d 641

Citing Cases

Powers v. Powers

The present record shows only that plaintiff has filed a partition suit instead of producing money. Plaintiff…

Bui v. Bui

But partition also lies at the behest of an equitable owner of real property. (Kolis v. Kolis (1951)…