B-126699, MAR. 29, 1957
Highlights
ATTORNEY AT LAW: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE CLAIM OF YOUR CLIENT. WE WERE NOT THEN INFORMED OF THE JUDGMENT DATED MAY 3. THAT A MONEY JUDGMENT WAS NOT RENDERED BY THE COURT ONLY BECAUSE THE TOTAL AMOUNTS OF THE OPPOSING JUDGMENTS WERE "APPROXIMATELY EQUAL.'. YOU HAVE FURNISHED US A COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED MAY 15. THAT JANET SAMMO WILL MAKE NO FURTHER DEMANDS FOR PROPERTY OR MONEY ALLEGED TO BELONG TO LOUIS SAMMO OR HERSELF. YOUR CLIENT'S POSITION IN REGARD TO HER CLAIM ON FILE HERE IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE AGREEMENT ADMITTED TO HAVE BEEN EXECUTED BY HER. OUR VIEW IS THAT YOUR CLIENT. IS NOT ENTITLED TO AN ADDITIONAL PAYMENT AND HER CLAIM IS ACCORDINGLY HEREBY DENIED.
B-126699, MAR. 29, 1957
TO MR. WILLIAM H. MCPHERSON, ATTORNEY AT LAW:
FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE CLAIM OF YOUR CLIENT, MRS. OLIVIA PASSANANDO, AS GUARDIAN OF THE PERSON AND ESTATE OF JANET SAMO, FOR COMPENSATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,182.40, ALLEGED TO BE DUE IN THE CASE OF LOUIE SAMO, A DECEASED FORMER EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE.
IN OUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 19, 1956, TO YOU, WE ADVISED THAT A SETTLEMENT IN FAVOR OF YOUR CLIENT WOULD ISSUE IN DUE COURSE. HOWEVER, WE WERE NOT THEN INFORMED OF THE JUDGMENT DATED MAY 3, 1956, RENDERED BY THE MUNICIPAL COURT, VALLEJO JUDICIAL DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA, IN CASE NO. 05465. IN THAT CASE, YOUR CLIENT OBTAINED JUDGMENT AGAINST JOSEPHINE SAMO IN FACT HAS ACCOUNTED TO YOUR CLIENT, AS ADMINISTRATRIX THE UNITED STATES TO MRS. SAMO. IT FURTHER APPEARS THAT THE COURT ALSO GAVE JUDGMENT TO JOSEPHINE SAMO ON HER COUNTERCLAIM FOR BURIAL EXPENSES AND OTHER OUT-OF-POCKET EXPENSES, AND THAT A MONEY JUDGMENT WAS NOT RENDERED BY THE COURT ONLY BECAUSE THE TOTAL AMOUNTS OF THE OPPOSING JUDGMENTS WERE "APPROXIMATELY EQUAL.' IT APPEARS THEREFORE THAT NOSEPHINE SAMO IN FACT HAS ACCOUNTED TO YOUR CLIENT, AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF LOUIE SAMO, FOR THE COMPENSATION NOW CLAIMED BY HER AS GUARDIAN OF THE PERSON AND ESTATE OF JANET SAMO, IN THE SUM OF $1,182.40.
ALSO, YOU HAVE FURNISHED US A COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED MAY 15, 1956, BETWEEN YOUR CLIENT, AS GUARDIAN OF JANET SAMO, AND JOSEPHINE SAMO WHICH READS IN PERTINENT PART AS FOLLOWS:
"3. THAT JANET SAMMO WILL MAKE NO FURTHER DEMANDS FOR PROPERTY OR MONEY ALLEGED TO BELONG TO LOUIS SAMMO OR HERSELF, AND DOES HEREBY RELEASE AND DISCHARGE THE SAID JOSEPHINE SAMMO FROM ANY AND ALL CLAIMS, DEMANDS, OBLIGATIONS, AND LIABILITIES ARISING OUT OF THE MARRIAGE OF JOSEPHINE SAMMO AND LOUIS SAMMO AND OUT OF THE DEATH OF LOUIS SAMMO, AND FROM ANY SUCH CLAIMS, DEBTS, OBLIGATIONS, AND LIABILITIES ACCRUING OR ALLEGED TO ACCRUE TO THE SAID JANET SAMMO BY REASON OF HER BEING THE DAUGHTER OF THE SAID LOUIS SAMMO.'
AS INDICATED IN OUR LETTER OF JANUARY 9, 1957, TO YOU, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT YOUR CLIENT, BY RECOVERING JUDGMENT AGAINST JOSEPHINE SAMMO FOR THE AMOUNT OF THE COMPENSATION IMPROPERLY RECEIVED BY HER AND OBTAINING SATISFACTION OF THAT JUDGMENT BY OFFSET, IN EFFECT, HAS RECEIVED THE AMOUNT NOW CLAIMED BY HER AS GUARDIAN OF JOSEPHINE SAMO FROM THE UNITED STATES. ALSO, YOUR CLIENT'S POSITION IN REGARD TO HER CLAIM ON FILE HERE IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE AGREEMENT ADMITTED TO HAVE BEEN EXECUTED BY HER. THEREFORE, OUR VIEW IS THAT YOUR CLIENT, MRS. OLIVIA PASSANANDO, IS NOT ENTITLED TO AN ADDITIONAL PAYMENT AND HER CLAIM IS ACCORDINGLY HEREBY DENIED.