Valdez v. Sams, 17918
| Decision Date | 04 February 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 17918,17918 |
| Citation | 307 P.2d 189,134 Colo. 488 |
| Parties | John VALDEZ, Agneda Valdez, Fred Apodaca, Clara Apodaca, and Freddie Apodaca, Jr., a minor, by his father and next friend, Fred Apodaca, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Robert Edward SAMS and William Sams, Defendants in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Kripke & McLean, Denver, Arnold Alperstein, Lakewood, for plaintiffs in error.
Isaac E. Moore, Denver, for defendants in error.
The parties appear in the same order in which they appeared in the trial court, and we will refer to them as plaintiffs and defendants.
Plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that they sustained injuries and damages resulting from an automobile collision which was proximately caused by the negligence of defendants. They further alleged that the defendant Sams 'willfully, recklessly, carelessly, and negligently drove, or caused to be driven, a motor vehicle into and against the vehcle' in which they were riding, and that said Sams 'was guilty of negligence consisting of a reckless or willful disregard of the right or safety of others.'
Defendants failed to appear or defend in the trial court and default was entered against them pursuant to Rule 55, R.C.P.Colo. Thereafter evidence was taken by the court to determine what judgment should be entered.
It appears from the judgment entered in the trial court that no finding was made that either defendant was guilty of negligence consisting of a reckless or willful disregard of the right or safety of others, or that either defendant 'willfully, recklessly, carelessly, and negligently drove' the automobile which collided with that in which plaintiffs were riding. The damages awarded were compensatory, as distinguished from exemplary damages.
After the entry of judgment defendant Sams filed a petition in bankruptcy in the District Court of the United States for the district of Colorado, in which he scheduled said judgment as evidencing a debt from which he sought discharge. Plaintiffs thereupon filed a petition in the bankruptcy proceedings seeking an order to exempt the judgment from the operation of a discharge in bankruptcy. The referee denied the petition 'without prejudice to any rights that may inhere in the petitioners, or any of them, under the provisions of Section 17 of the Bankruptcy Act.'
Defendant Sams was discharged in bankruptcy on June 23, 1955. Thereafter plaintiffs caused execution to issue upon said judgment, and garnishment proceedings were instituted in an effort to collect the judgment. Defendant Sams obtained from the trial court an ex parte order directing the sheriff to release and discharge the garnishee, and prohibiting issuance of further writs of garnishment and attachment in the cause. Plaintiffs thereupon filed a motion to vacate said order. The trial court heard this motion and thereafter adjudged and decreed that said 'judgment entered herein be deemed discharged by the aforesaid bankruptcy of said defendant Robert Edward Sams,' and it is to this judgment that the writ of error herein is directed.
On behalf of plaintiffs it is contended that when defendant Sams permitted default to enter against him he admitted the truth of all facts properly alleged in the complaint, including the allegation of reckless or willful disregard of the rights or safety of others, and that the judgment entered following the entry of default created an obligation which could not be discharged in bankruptcy proceedings.
11 U.S.C.A. § 35, ch. 3, sec. 17, Bankruptcy Act of 1898, as amended, provides in pertinent part that, 'A discharge in bankruptcy shall release a bankrupt from all of his provable debts, * * * except * * * for willful and malicious injuries to the person or property of another * * *.'
Where in an action to recover judgment for damages resulting from an automobile collision, the complaint contains an allegation that the defendant was quilty of negligence consisting of a 'reckless or willful disregard of the right or safety of others'; and where default of defendant was entered and thereafter the court heard evidence in support of the allegation of the complaint...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kwik Way Stores, Inc. v. Caldwell, 85SC281
...55(b)(2) as requiring the trial court to take evidence if further information is needed to determine damages. Valdez v. Sams, 134 Colo. 488, 491, 307 P.2d 189, 191 (1957). A hearing is unnecessary only in an action for a liquidated amount or a sum calculable by mathematical processes alone.......
-
Sumler v. District Court, City and County of Denver
...Kwik Way Stores Inc. v. Caldwell, 709 P.2d 36, 38 (Colo.App.1985) rev'd on other grounds, 745 P.2d 672 (Colo.1987); see Valdez v. Sams, 134 Colo. 488, 307 P.2d 189 (1957). The default judgment entered on October 21, 1993, after the hearing on damages, was a final judgment because it left th......
-
Kwik Way Stores, Inc. v. Caldwell
...the court is required to conduct a hearing, where proof of any fact is necessary to enable it to assess damages. Valdez v. Sams, 134 Colo. 488, 307 P.2d 189 (1957). Furthermore, notice of the hearing must be given to a defaulting party who had entered an appearance. C.R.C.P. 55(b)(2). Thus,......
-
Martin v. Rosenbaum
...refer to fraud, only those other cases where multiple causes of action were alleged are of much value as precedent. Cf. Valdez v. Sams, 1957, 134 Colo. 488, 307 P.2d 189; Freedman v. Cooper, 1941, 126 N.J.L. 177, 17 A.2d 609. Both are auto personal injury cases, and the former disavows the ......
-
Important: Know Section 17 of the Bankruptcy Act
...is a verdict which is well worth pursuing. The leading case in Colorado that points out the importance of this is Valdez v. Sams, 134 Colo. 488, 307 P.2d 189 The plaintiffs had alleged in their complaint that they sustained injuries and damages resulting from an automobile collision proxima......
-
Motions for Default Judgments
...20. Thompson, supra, note 17; Courtney, supra, note 19; Borrego, supra, note 16. 21. See Kwik Way, supra, note 1. 22. Valdez v. Sams, 307 P.2d 189 (Colo. 1957); Johnson v. S.W. Devanney & Co., Inc., 719 P.2d 734 (Colo.App. 1986). 23. CRS § 5-12-101. 24. Spensieri v. Farmers Alliance Mut. In......