Bank of America Nat. Trust & Sav. Ass'n v. Baker
| Decision Date | 16 December 1965 |
| Citation | 238 Cal.App.2d 778,48 Cal.Rptr. 165 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL TRUST AND SAVINGS ASSOCIATION, a national banking association, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Carl Francis BAKER, Defendant and Appellant, and Oretta Mae Baker, Defendant. Civ. 7716. |
Carl F. Baker, in pro. per.
Samuel B. Stewart, Robert H. Fabian and James L. Williams, Jr., Los Angeles, for plaintiff and respondent.
The defendants in this action are Carl Francis Baker and his wife Oretta Mae Baker. Only Mr. Baker has appealed.
The plaintiff, Bank of America, filed a complaint for claim and delivery of personal property after the Bakers' alleged default on a promissory note secured by a chattel mortgage. The sheriff levied on the property. The Bakers' answer and counterclaims admitted the note, mortgage, and unpaid balance, but denied liability, asserting the Bank had refused their tender of payment.
Before trial, the Bank served the Bakers with a request for admissions (Code Civ.Proc. § 2033); the Bakers did not answer the request, although it was again brought to their attention at the pre-trial conference.
When the case was called for trial, the court granted the Bank's motion for judgment. This was based on the Bakers' failure to answer the request for admissions, resulting in no triable issues.
Mr. Baker contends that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the Bank's motion for judgment, thus foreclosing him from presenting evidence at a trial in support of his defense and counterclaims.
Failure to answer the request for admissions is deemed an admission of the matters contained in the request. (Code Civ.Proc. § 2033(a).) The trial court properly exercised its discretion under section 2033, to set 'at rest a triable issue so that it will not have to be tried' (Cembrook v. Superior Court, 56 Cal.2d 423, 429, 15 Cal.Rptr. 127, 131, 364 P.2d 303, 307; Cembrook v. Sterling Drug, Inc., 231 Cal.App.2d 52, 62, 41 Cal.Rptr. 492.) The request for admissions specifically concerned the only remaining issues of a tender and its refusal and the right to possession; the effect of these issues being deemed admitted was to remove all issues raised by the pleadings.
Mr. Baker claims that his formal verified answer, in response to the complaint, constituted a response to the request for admissions. This is patently not so. The pleadings are not to be confused with the mechanisms for discovery,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Petersen v. City of Vallejo
...57 Cal.Rptr. 383. See also Rosen v. Superior Court, supra, 244 Cal.App.2d 586, 591, 53 Cal.Rptr. 347; Bank of America, etc., v. Baker (1965) 238 Cal.App.2d 778, 779, 48 Cal.Rptr. 165; and Unger v. Los Angeles Transit Lines (1960) 180 Cal.App.2d 172, 180--186, 4 Cal.Rptr. 370, 5 Cal.Rptr. 71......
- People v. Dominick
-
Elston v. City of Turlock
...in section 2033, subdivision (a), has the effect of eliminating the facts admitted as issues in the case. (Bank of America v. Baker (1965) 238 Cal.App.2d 778, 779, 48 Cal.Rptr. 165, cited with approval by the Supreme Court in Shepard & Morgan v. Lee & Daniel, Inc. (1982) 31 Cal.3d 256, 261,......
-
Jack v. Wood
...of the matters contained in such request. (See Code of Civil Procedure, § 2033, subdiv. (a); Bank of America Nat. Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Baker, 238 Cal.App.2d 778, 779, 48 Cal.Rptr. 165.) A summary judgment may be based on such admissions and requests for admissions, and on the moving par......