Legg v. Ford

• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: ASHBURN; FOX, P. J., and NOURSE
• Citation: 8 Cal.Rptr. 392,185 Cal.App.2d 534
• Parties: Leona LEGG, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. John FORD, Harold J. Ostly, Laura Breska, Mutual Benefit Health and Accident Association, J. Edward Haley, Harold W. Kennedy, County of Los Angeles Department of Charities, County of Los Angeles, a Corporation, Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 24706.
• Decision Date: 20 October 1960

Page 392

8 Cal.Rptr. 392 185 Cal.App.2d 534 Leona LEGG, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
John FORD, Harold J. Ostly, Laura Breska, Mutual Benefit Health and Accident Association, J. Edward Haley, Harold W. Kennedy, County of Los Angeles Department of Charities, County of Los Angeles, a Corporation, Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 24706. District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California. Oct. 20, 1960.

Page 393

[185 Cal.App.2d 536] Leona Legg, in pro. per., for appellant.

J. Edward Haley, Los Angeles, for respondent Mut. Benefit Health and Accident Ass'n.

Harold W. Kennedy, County Counsel, Wm. E. Lamoreaux, Asst. County Counsel; Edward A. Nugent, Deputy County Counsel, Los Angeles, for respondents John J. Ford, Harold J. Ostly, Laura Breska, Harold W. Kennedy and County of Los Angeles (Dept. of Charities).

ASHBURN, Justice.

On October 13, 1959, plaintiff filed her Third Amended Complaint for 'Fraud, Conspiracy, Perjury, Violations of Statutes, Injury and Damages.' Named as defendants are John Ford, Harold J. Ostly, Laura Breska, Harold W. Kennedy, County of Los Angeles Department of Charities, County of Los Angeles, a Corporation (hereinafter sometimes collectively referred to as the 'county defendant'), Mutual Benefit Health and Accident Association (hereinafter referred to as 'Mutual'), and J. Edward Haley (hereinafter referred to as 'Haley').

A general and special demurrer was filed by the county defendants and by defendants Mutual and Haley, each of which was sustained without leave to amend. Judgment was entered in favor of defendants Mutual and Haley on December[185 Cal.App.2d 537] 4, 1959, and on December 15, 1959 in favor of the county defendants. Plaintiff appeals from these two judgments and from an order denying her motion to open the judgment of December 4, 1959 and to permit the filing of a fourth amended complaint, or to vacate and set aside said judgment.

The complaint is in six causes of action, but as the second, third and fifth are for punitive damages based on facts alleged in the other causes, we will direct our attention to the first, fourth and sixth causes of action. Counsel for Mutual aptly comment that '[a] reading of the several complaints only leads one into a fog of uncertainty, bewilderment and a jungle of semantics.' ¹ In order to accurately portray the true nature of the complaint, it will be necessary to quote substantial portions thereof.

The basic allegation of each cause of action is to the effect that the defendants conspired to defraud plaintiff in her capacity of judgment creditor of the benefits due her under an insurance policy of Mutual. ² In each cause she then proceeds to assert what purports to be acts done by the individual defendants pursuant to said conspiracy.

In the first cause of action it is alleged that defendant Haley conspired with the other defendants to deprive her of said rights by 'fraudulently protecting the defendant's rights on appeal and trial proceedings in Action 653840 * * *.' (This paragraph is also incorporated in all other causes.) It is then alleged in the first cause that 'through and by the concerted acts and monetary motives' of all defendants to aid and abet defendants Mutual and Haley, the defendants 'with further judicial collaberation togather and corrupt conduct in office agreed that the defendant John

Page 394

Ford, Judge, and the defendant County of Los Angeles * * *, while reviewing another action (Clk Tr. No. 653840) for the Defendant County of Los Angeles Department of Charities, find facts sufficient to mitigate[185 Cal.App.2d 538] the age of plaintiff beyound the period of 60-years, and then and there said defendant * * * Judge, did find conflicting facts to be that your plaintiff was born in the year of 1887 or as a probable factition thereof your plaintiff was born again in the year of 1888 at a time when no such evidence appeared in any bone fida record upon which said judge * * * could make the above findings.' The concluding paragraph of this cause reads: 'That upon the rendition of the judgment in favor of your plaintiff and against the defendant Mutual Benefit Health and Accident Association and defendant J. Edward Haley as aforesaid, the defendant each and all of them through and by the concerted acts aforesaid, fraudulently and intentionally deprived your plaintiff of her subsidy life-subsidy, medical services and attendance judicially rendered her by the defendant County of Los Angeles a Corporation, administrated by the defendant County of Los Angeles Department of Charities, and as a direct result thereof your plaintiff was personally injured and damaged thereby in the sum of $5,571.36.'

In the Fourth cause of action, after incorporating the paragraphs hereinabove referred to, it is alleged that the defendants 'in pursuit of collusion and confederation in conspiracy togather, through and by judicial abuse of process and corrupt conduct in office, did willfully, fradulently and intentionally make use of legal proceedings in another action case No. 653840, to fraudulently mitigate your plaintiff's age, and did thereby wrongfully and conflictively establish the date of your plaintiff's birth to be either in the year of 1887 or in the year of 1888, when no such evidence appeared in any bone fida record on which said defendant Judge * * * could make the above findings for all of the defendants aforesaid.' That the judge made 'such false and conflicting findings' for the purpose 'of entraptment of your plaintiff in her reliance thereon, and for a further purpose of judicial seducement of an innocent person--your plaintiff into a Criminal Career in fraudulently applying for and accepting monetary benefits under the Old Age and Security Act on becoming 62-years of age on November 24, 1956.' Further assertions indicate the theory of this cause of action to be that the judge, in collaboration with the other defendants, fraudulently made a finding in case No. 654840 to the effect that plaintiff was born either in 1887 or 1888 (and thus over 65 years of age) for the purpose of forcing plaintiff to commit perjury by misstating her age in applying for Social Security 'at a time when each and all [185 Cal.App.2d 539] of said defendants had knowledge of the true facts of her birth in the year of 1894, of which your plaintiff had previously sworn to be true,' and to 'coerce your plaintiff into accepting the said proffered Old Age and Security Benefits by perjury commitments aforesaid, instead of the maintainance subsidy, medical services and attendance rendered her by the defendant County of Los Angeles, a Corporation, through and by the defendant County of Los Angeles Department of Charities and thereby, put your plaintiff into a position of death by starvation, disregarding any physical suffering and emotional distress which may well result form said deprivation.' All of which, it is asserted, caused plaintiff physical and mental damages in the amount of $50,000.

The Sixth cause of action alleges that the defendants conspired to defraud her, in her capacity of judgment creditor, of indemnity benefits due her under the Mutual policy. The further allegations of this cause of action are to the effect that defendants conspired to and did suppress the existence of a court reporter and withheld from her a reporter's transcript in case No. 653840, with assertions directed to acts of the individual...