Little v. Nau CA4/1 ( 2014 )

Filed 4/15/14 Little v. Nau CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL - FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SCHERRIETO LITTLE, D063792
Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 37-2011-00087-131-
CU-BC-CTL)
v.
JANIS NAU, as Administrator, etc.,
Defendant and Respondent;
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, William S.
Dato, Judge. Affirmed.
Scherrieto Little, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Kessler & Seecof, Daniel J. Kessler and Benjamin R. Seecof for Defendant and
Respondent.
Scherrieto Little, appearing in propria persona, appeals a judgment against her,
following a bench trial on her complaint. She asserts the trial court was biased against her
and erred by failing to make specific findings. She also claims the trial court erroneously
excluded evidence at trial. We reject her contentions and affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Little is the daughter of Arthur L. Watson, aka Albert Odom (Watson). Watson
died in 2008. Little sued Janis Nau, the administrator of Watson's estate, alleging causes
of action for breach of contract, declaratory relief, constructive trust and unjust
enrichment.
Little alleged that in 1984 she and her two sisters purchased a piece of property
located in San Diego (the property). Their parents co-signed the loan and title was held in
the parents' names. In 1993, Little and her husband purchased the other sisters' ownership
interest in the property. Watson later loaned Little and her husband $16,000. Little and
her husband quitclaimed the property to Watson, with Watson promising that Little and
her husband remained the true owners of the property.
After Little and her husband repaid the loan, Little's husband asserted that he did
not want to have anything to do with the property and Watson stated he would quitclaim
the property to Little. Little claimed she did not make any attempts to have her name
added to the title because she trusted Watson. In May 2001, Watson and his wife
quitclaimed the property to Watson as his separate property. After Watson's death, Nau
sold the property. Little claimed she was entitled to 50 percent of the net sale proceeds
under a partially oral and partially written agreement with Watson.
The matter proceeded to trial and the court heard evidence over the course of two
days. After hearing the evidence, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of Nau,
concluding that Little had "failed to present sufficient evidence regarding repayment."
The courted entered judgment for Nau and Little timely appealed. Thereafter, Nau filed a
2
motion requesting that this appeal be granted preference on the ground the proceeds of the
sale of the property are the only asset of Watson's estate and that the probate proceedings
cannot be concluded until this appeal is resolved. We granted calendar preference and
expedited this appeal.
DISCUSSION
As a preliminary matter, we deem Little's claim of judicial bias to be forfeited
because she offered no analysis or citations to the record and authority of how the court
was biased against her. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C); Nelson v. Avondale
Homeowners Assn. (2009) 172 Cal. App. 4th 857, 862 (Nelson); Grant-Burton v. Covenant
Care, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal. App. 4th 1361, 1379.) The trial court had a duty to consider the
evidence, resolve evidentiary conflicts and form an opinion. (Moulton Niguel Water Dist.
v. Colombo (2003) 111 Cal. App. 4th 1210, 1220.) The fact the trial court ultimately
rejected Little's claims " 'does not amount to [improper] bias and prejudice.' " (Ibid.)
Little asserts that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to make
specific findings. We disagree. A trial court is required to issue a statement of decision
explaining the factual and legal basis for its decision "upon the request of any party
appearing at the trial." (Code Civ. Proc., § 632.) Where, as here, the trial is not
completed within one calendar day, a request for a statement of decision must be made
within 10 days after the court announces its tentative decision. (Ibid.) Little does not
claim that she timely requested a statement of decision and we have not found such a
request in the record on appeal.
3
Where a party fails to request a statement of decision, the doctrine of implied
findings applies. (Shaw v. County of Santa Cruz (2008) 170 Cal. App. 4th 229, 267.)
Under this doctrine, we presume that the "trial court made all factual findings necessary to
support the judgment for which substantial evidence exists in the record. In other words,
the necessary findings of ultimate facts will be implied and the only issue on appeal is
whether the implied findings are supported by substantial evidence." (Ibid.)
It is the burden of the party challenging a judgment to provide an adequate record
to assess claims of error. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal. 4th 1122, 1140-1141.) Here,
the record on appeal does not contain a reporter's transcript of the trial. This is referred to
as a judgment roll appeal. (Allen v. Toten (1985) 172 Cal. App. 3d 1079, 1082-1083.) "On
such an appeal, '[the] question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings is
not open.' " (Id. at p. 1082.) Instead, we presume that all findings by the trial court are
supported by substantial evidence, and we can only consider whether the judgment is
supported by the findings or whether reversible error appears on the face of the record.
(Nielson v. Gibson (2009) 178 Cal. App. 4th 318, 324-325.) These rules of appellate
procedure apply to Little even though she is representing herself on appeal. (Leslie v.
Board of Medical Quality Assurance (1991) 234 Cal. App. 3d 117, 121.) Although Little
lodged the exhibits that she presented to the trial court, these exhibits do not support
Little's claim that she had an agreement with Watson to share an equal ownership interest
in the property. On the face of this record, we find no error; we must affirm the trial
court's decision.
4
Finally, Little claims the trial court erroneously excluded evidence at trial. This
claim, however, is not supported by the record or reasoned argument and we deem it
forfeited. (Nelson, supra, 172 Cal.App.4th at p. 862.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Respondent is entitled to costs on appeal.
McINTYRE, J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
O'ROURKE, J.
5