Taliaferro v. Riddle
| Decision Date | 28 June 1960 |
| Citation | 5 Cal.Rptr. 874,182 Cal.App.2d 235 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Eugene A. TALIAFERRO, Plaintiff and Eugene A. TALIAFERRO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Margaret RIDDLE et al., Defendants, Dorothy D. Taliaferro, Defendant and Respondent. Civ. 18788. |
Eugene A. Taliaferro, appellant, in pro. per.
Frisbie & Hoogs, Berkeley, for respondent.
Plaintiff appeals from an order setting aside the default of Dorothy, his former wife, who is one of a number of defendants originally joined in this action. The complaint was filed in 1950. On December 12, 1958, notice of overruling of respondent's demurrer to the complaint was served upon her then attorney, who obtained an order extending her time to answer to January 12, 1959. On a date not disclosed by the record, but between January 12 and February 9, 1959, respondent's default was entered. Judgment upon the default was entered only against respondent on February 9, and respondent's motion to vacate the default was filed February 16, 1959.
Affidavits in support of respondent's motion were filed by her former attorney of record in this case, Mr. Moses, and by her present attorney, Mr. Hoogs. Both emphasize the number and complexity of the proceedings between the parties hereto. Mr. Hoogs avers that he had become so 'confused and confounded' by the many cases and the variety of procedural steps taken in each that he found it 'extremely difficult to keep an accurate' calendar of the time required for each act to be done in behalf of his client. Mr. Moses also states that the death of a relative on January 12, 1959, left him 'personally upset and preoccupied.'
The litigious history of appellant's disputes with his former wife (see Taliaferro v. Taliaferro, 178 Cal.App.2d 140, 2 Cal.Rptr. 716, and Taliaferro v. Taliaferro, 180 Cal.App.2d 44, 4 Cal.Rptr. 693, for a brief summary of a portion of this litigation) lends weight to the view that the confusion of the two attorneys was not unreasonable. Neglect of an attorney in less complex circumstances has been held excusable (Shively v. Kochman, 23 Cal.App.2d 420, 73 P.2d 637) and pressure of legal business accumulated because of concern over the illness of a son has been similarly recognized (Stub v. Harrison, 35 Cal.App.2d 685, 96 P.2d 979).
An order setting aside a default is viewed with favor on appeal and will be reversed only when 'it clearly appears...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taliaferro v. Hoogs
...that he was a vexatious litigant as defined by the statute. This is another episode in what was denominated in Taliaferro v. Riddle, 182 Cal.App.2d 235, 236, 5 Cal.Rptr. 874, as '[t]he litigious history of appellant's disputes with his former wife,' Dorothy Davis, who divorced him in 1944. ......
- Borgonovo v. Henderson
-
Taliaferro v. Taliaferro
... ... Defendant's demurrer to the complaint was overruled, and her default was again taken, but was set aside. An appeal was taken from the order setting aside that default. The order setting aside the default was affirmed in Taliaferro v. Riddle (1960) 182 Cal.App.2d 235, 5$ Cal.Rptr. 874. Thereafter plaintiff moved to file an 'Amendment to Complaint.' 2 The motion was granted and on October 25, 1960, the 'Amendment to Complaint' was filed. Although a copy of the latter was attached to the notice of motion for permission to file it, ... ...