Opinion ID: 1167064
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: HILL v. MARTIN

Text: On September 30, 1977, Hill sued the Martins in petitioner's court for unlawful detainer of a dwelling. On October 5 the Martins, represented by Appelbaum, filed an answer setting up breach of implied warranty of habitability and enumerating serious defects in the premises. Petitioner reviewed the answer, thought it incredible that anyone would live in a house under the conditions alleged, suspected perjury, and without consulting the parties made inquiries of the county building and health departments. On October 21 petitioner received a copy of a letter to Hill from a county building inspector listing repairs required on pain of an order to vacate. Those repairs corresponded to some but not all defects alleged in the answer. Petitioner made notes of a call received from a health department employee on October 24. The employee said the house was not substandard by any stretch of the imagination but, except to report water good and septic OK, did not expressly contradict the alleged defects. At a pretrial conference on October 28 petitioner announced his investigation, declared his suspicion that the Martins' allegations were false, and indicated he might hold a hearing on whether they were in contempt. He said that because of the investigation he would disqualify himself from the trial of the merits. That trial was set for November 18. Later on October 28 he wrote to the building department, enclosing a copy of the Martin answer and requesting in order to determine whether or not perjury has been committed that one of your inspectors examine this house using the allegations in the answer as special points to check. He asked for a report by November 18. The county replied on November 3 that the building was vacant and would be posted as hazardous. Petitioner then abandoned the inquiry and telephoned Appelbaum to apologize. On Hill's motion the case was dismissed. [7] The commission found that petitioner should have known that it was beyond his lawful authority to conduct an ex parte investigation into allegations of civil pleadings and attempt to transform an ordinary civil case into a contempt proceeding based upon [petitioner's] distorted view that perjury had been committed. It and the master both sustained charges that petitioner committed prejudicial conduct (but not wilful misconduct) by improperly injecting himself into the proceeding and abusing the contempt power. (7) We agree with the finding that petitioner was guilty of prejudicial conduct. By undertaking a collateral investigation he abdicated his responsibility for deciding the parties' dispute on pleadings and evidence properly brought before him. However, we sustain only the charge of improperly injecting himself into a proceeding and not the charge of abusing the contempt power. (8) It is not misconduct for a judge to initiate contempt proceedings after hearing a case in which properly presented evidence indicated probably deliberate falsity in a verified pleading. (See People v. Agnew (1947) 77 Cal. App.2d 748 [176 P.2d 724] (perjury in verified pleading).) Petitioner's mistake was abandoning his adjudicative role for an investigatory one.