The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P obtained a money judgment against D for the sum of $382,886 plus costs. By means of an execution and garnishment, P collected $36,560 from D out of a pending escrow. P instituted a receivership proceeding with an order ex parte to show cause why a receiver should not be appointed to marshal and disburse D's assets to satisfy the judgment. By document P showed the court that demand was made upon D to pay the judgment, but D refused; that P, as the judgment creditor, is unable to levy execution upon D's earnings, and that the only process available to enforce payment is by the appointment of a receiver who would collect D's earnings and disburse the funds to P toward the satisfaction of the judgment in accordance with section 690.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The second document discussed the various tricks used by D such as giving his mother in law a trust deed promissory note on apartment property with an assignment of rents clause wherein it was impossible for D to prove collusion. The declaration that D is a practicing dentist, and that his accounts receivable was subject to a factoring arrangement and that a judgment creditor would have great difficulty in collecting a judgment. D also bragged to P that she would have great difficulty locating any of his assets that were subject to levy. Also because of these difficulties in locating assets subject to levy, P decided to assign the judgment for collection. P claimed that a receiver would be the only feasible way to enforce P's rights under the judgment. The court ex parte appointed Robinson as receiver. D appealed.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.