In a rather entertaining case out of California, a 61 year old man named Oreste Lodi brought an action against himself alleging that he tried to "control his estate" for 61 years. Although it unfortunately appears that Mr. Lodi may very well suffer from some sort of mental condition, the lawsuit nevertheless sets the stage for an amusing decision entitled Lodi v. Lodi, 219 Cal. Rptr. 116 (Cal. App. 3 Dist 1985).
Here are some excerpts for your reading pleasure:
This case started when plaintiff Oreste Lodi sued himself in the Shasta County Superior Court.
In a complaint styled "Action to Quiet Title Equity," plaintiff named himself, under the title "Oreste Lodi, Beneficiary," as defendant. The pleading alleges that defendant Lodi is the beneficiary of a charitable trust, the estate of which would revert to plaintiff Lodi, as "Reversioner," upon notice...Plaintiff requested an order that he is absolutely entitled to possession of the estate, and terminating all claims against the estate by any and all persons "claiming" under defendant.
The complaint was duly served by plaintiff Lodi, as "Reversioner," upon himself as defendant/beneficiary. When defendant/beneficiary Lodi failed to answer, plaintiff/reversioner Lodi had a clerk's default entered and thereafter requested entry of a default judgment. At the hearing on the entry of a default judgment, the superior court denied the request to enter judgment and dismissed the complaint.
In this court, appellant and respondent are the same person.
Each party has filed a brief...
In the circumstances, this result cannot be unfair to Mr. Lodi. Although it is true that, as plaintiff and appellant, he loses, it is equally true that, as defendant and respondent, he wins! It is hard to imagine a more even handed application of justice. Truly, it would appear that Oreste Lodi is that rare litigant who is assured of both victory and defeat regardless of which side triumphs.
We have considered whether respondent/defendant/beneficiary should be awarded his costs of suit on appeal, which he could thereafter recover from himself. However, we believe the equities are better served by requiring each party to bear his own costs on appeal.
The judgment (order) is affirmed. Each party shall bear his own costs.