Error: No such template "/hrDesign/network_profileHeader"!
Topic: The action was instituted to recover from defendants
Messages (1) Visitors (532)
chand king
|
The action was instituted to recover from defendants
04-28-2021 / 7:46 am #1
|
Plaintiff taxpayer, on behalf of himself and all other county taxpayers, sought review of a decision by the Superior Court of San Mateo County (California), which was entered in favor of defendants, the members of the board of supervisors, the treasurer of the county, San Mateo County Fair Association, and the county of San Mateo in an action to recover a money judgment.
The action was instituted to recover from defendants, other than the county of San Mateo, ada compliant website a judgment in the sum of $ 48,013.42. It appeared that disbursements in the amount specified were paid by check by the treasurer of the San Mateo County Fair Association from funds received by San Mateo County from the State of California and deposited in a private bank in pursuance of directions from the State of California, Department of Finance. The action did not involve fraud or failure to secure value in the expenditure of state or county funds. The return of the money to the county treasurer would merely have resulted in the county executive officially approving or disapproving the expenditures. The question was whether the state statutes or the county charter governed the disposition of funds allocated by the state to the county from the State of California Fair and Exposition Fund. The court found that the Legislature through the Business and Professions Code authorized the expenditure, under the supervision of the state Department of Finance, in accordance with the policy outlined in the Agricultural Code that certain state money might be used for the maintenance of county fairs.
The judgment was affirmed.
All points asserted in an appeal by a judgment debtor and his wife were forfeited because they were unsupported by adequate factual or legal analysis; Sanctions against the debtor, his wife, and their attorney were warranted under Code Civ. Proc., § 907, and Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.276, because their appeal indisputably had no merit and any reasonable attorney would agree that the appeal was totally and completely without merit; The amount of attorney fees and costs requested in the sanctions motion, which was supported by a declaration by counsel and an itemized billing statement showing fees and costs incurred, was reasonable; Because the degree of objective frivolousness was very high and the need for discouragement of like conduct in the future was great, additional sanctions payable directly to the clerk of the court were appropriate.
Judgment affirmed and sanctions imposed.
|
|
|
