Teacher v. Teacher CA5/1

California Court of Appeal · D063391 · 2014-03-06 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. 37-2008-00151918-PR-TR-CTL
Trial judge: Richard G. Cline
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed; the motion to augment the record is denied.
Area: probate
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Alex C. McDonald, Judith L. Haller

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:44Z · confidence low

The trial court issued an order enforcing a written settlement agreement between the parties and appointing an elisor to execute the appellant's signature if he failed to sign. The Court of Appeal affirmed the order, finding the record supported the trial court's determination that the appellant agreed to the terms and that his objections were waived or without merit.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Order enforcing settlement agreement and appointing elisor “the probate court's determination that Appellant agreed to the terms of the settlement is well supported, and it should properly be enforced.”	substantial evidence	correct	agree with court The appellate court correctly applied the substantial evidence standard to the factual determination of whether the parties reached a settlement, as established in Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick. The record, though sparse, contained transcripts showing the appellant signed the formalized settlement document and participated in hearings where objections were raised and rejected, supporting the trial court's finding of consent.
Denial of motion to augment record with July 5, 2011 stipulation “The request was deferred to this merits panel and is now denied as incomplete.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court denied the augmentation request because the appellant failed to provide the document in proper format, citing procedural rules regarding record completeness. This is a procedural determination within the court's discretion to manage the appellate record.

Authorities

relied: Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793 — Factual determinations on a section 664.6 motion to enforce a settlement are reviewed for substantial evidence, while other rulings are reviewed de novo for errors of law; settlement agreements are contracts requiring mutual consent.
relied: Hines v. Luke (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174 — A settlement is valid, binding, and enforceable under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 if the parties agreed to all material settlement terms.
relied: Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564 — An appellant has the burden to provide an adequate record and affirmatively to show reversible error.
relied: Wantuch v. Davis (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 786 — In propria persona litigants are entitled to the same, but no greater, rights than represented litigants and are presumed to know the procedural and court rules.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly identifies the applicable standard of review for enforcing settlements under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 and applies it to the limited record provided. It appropriately addresses the appellant's procedural failures, such as the lack of adequate record and failure to support arguments with authority, leading to a defensible affirmance.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:31Z · confidence low

The San Diego probate court granted the trustee brothers' motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 to interpret and enforce a court-approved written settlement agreement that beneficiary Bruce Teacher had signed, awarded fees and costs against him, and authorized an elisor to sign the settlement documents if he did not. The Court of Appeal, applying Weddington's substantial-evidence/de novo standard and emphasizing the appellant's burden on a sparse record, found no error, denied his motion to augment the record, affirmed the order, and awarded respondents costs on appeal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Order granting motion to interpret and enforce the written settlement agreement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, based on the finding that Appellant agreed to its terms and his objections were without merit “However, on the sparse record provided, we can only conclude the probate court's determination that Appellant agreed to the terms of the settlement is well supported, and it should properly be enforced.”	mixed	correct	agree with court The court correctly identified the Weddington standard (substantial evidence for factual findings on a 664.6 motion, de novo for legal questions) and the contract-consent principles from Weddington and Hines v. Luke. The record showed Appellant signed the formalized settlement on February 1, 2012, the court held multiple hearings and allowed opposition, and Appellant provided neither the moving/opposing papers nor the stipulation, so under Ballard v. Uribe the order is presumed correct. Appellant identified no detriment from enforcing an agreement he signed.
Authorization to appoint an elisor to execute Appellant's signature on the settlement documents if he failed to sign by October 3, 2012 “the appointment of an elisor was authorized if the settlement documents were not signed by October 3, 2012, and the formal order was filed that date.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The opinion affirmed the order in full but did not separately analyze the elisor provision or cite authority for it. Appointment of an elisor to carry out a court order a party refuses to perform is a recognized remedy, and Appellant made no cognizable argument against it, so the result is defensible, but the opinion's silence leaves the point unexamined.
Rejection of Appellant's objection to the procedure used in continuing and reassigning the hearing after closure of the North County probate department “Appellant objects to the procedure used in continuing the hearing, after the closure of the North County probate department, but he does not show any jurisdictional basis for such an objection.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The record showed the clerk obtained a specially set date before the same judge, so there was no change of decision-maker and no identified prejudice. Appellant cited no authority making the continuance jurisdictionally defective, and under Nelson v. Avondale and Falcone & Fyke the unsupported point was properly treated as waived.
Rejection of Appellant's generalized due process and unfair-hearing claims “Appellant also makes generalized due process claims, and argues that he did not receive fair hearings, although nothing in the record shows that he raised such objections below through any efforts to disqualify the judge.”	de novo	correct	agree with court The court noted Appellant received several hearings, was permitted to file opposition, and had his objections summarized and addressed on the record. Nothing in the record showed he sought disqualification or otherwise preserved a fairness objection, and his briefing lacked record citations and authority, so rejection was proper under the burden-on-appeal principles cited.
Award of fees and costs against Appellant as part of the enforcement order “Fees and costs were awarded against Appellant, and the appointment of an elisor was authorized if the settlement documents were not signed by October 3, 2012, and the formal order was filed that date.”	unclear	correct	unsure The fee and cost award was part of the order affirmed, but the opinion does not state the basis for the award (whether under the settlement agreement, statute, or otherwise) or analyze it, and does not indicate Appellant separately challenged it. Without the order's text or the moving papers, I cannot assess whether the award was authorized, though affirmance follows from the inadequate record.

Authorities

relied: Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564 — Appellant bears the burden to provide an adequate record and affirmatively show reversible error.
relied: Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 849 — Appellant must support brief arguments with citations to specific pages of the record.
relied: Banning v. Newdow (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 438 — Appellant's duty to support arguments with record citations.
relied: Wantuch v. Davis (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 786 — Self-represented litigants have the same, but no greater, rights than represented litigants and are presumed to know procedural rules.
relied: Nelson v. Avondale Homeowners Assn. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 857 — Points not supported by reasoned argument and citation to authority are treated as waived.
relied: In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814 — The appellate court need not develop appellants' arguments for them; absence of cogent argument or authority permits treating contentions as waived.
relied: Diamond Benefits Life Insurance Co. v. Kroll (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1 — Cited for Appellant's position that pure questions of law are reviewed de novo and resolved factual issues under substantial evidence.
relied: Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793 — On a section 664.6 motion, factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence and other rulings de novo; a settlement is a contract requiring mutual consent.
relied: Hines v. Luke (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174 — A settlement is valid, binding, and enforceable under section 664.6 if the parties agreed to all material terms.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion correctly states the section 664.6 standard of review and the appellant's burden on appeal, and its affirmance on a record lacking the moving papers, the stipulation, and any showing of detriment is well supported by Ballard, Weddington, and Hines. It does not, however, separately analyze the fee and cost award or the elisor appointment, nor whether the court's 'interpretation' of how title would be held added material terms, leaving those points unexamined even if the result is defensible.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 3/6/14 Teacher v. Teacher CA5/1 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

BRUCE P. TEACHER, D063391 Plaintiff and Appellant, v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2008-00151918- PR-TR-CTL ) BRIAN D. TEACHER et al., Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Richard G.

Cline, Judge. Affirmed; the motion to augment the record is denied.

Bruce P. Teacher, in propria persona, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Patrick L. McCrary; Peterson, Burnell, Glauser & Allred and Chris J. Allred, for Defendants and Respondents.

In this probate matter, plaintiff and appellant Bruce P. Teacher (Appellant) is a beneficiary of several family trusts set up by his parents, including the Teacher Family Trust dated August 29, 1984, and the Theodore A. Teacher Testamentary Trust under his will dated June 11, 1964. Respondents Brian D. Teacher and Theodore M. Teacher (Respondents), his two brothers, are also beneficiaries, and they serve as trustees.

Appellant appeals an order enforcing a written, court-approved settlement agreement that he entered into with Respondents, concerning disputes over certain provisions of the trusts. (Prob. Code,1 §§ 1300, 1304, subd. (a) [authorizes appeals from orders in trust matters, such as orders that deal with the internal affairs of a trust pursuant to section 17200]; Code Civ. Proc., §§ 664.6; 904.1, subd. (a)(10).)

Appellant contends the probate court erred in several ways in issuing this order.

However, on the sparse record provided, we can only conclude the probate court's determination that Appellant agreed to the terms of the settlement is well supported, and it should properly be enforced. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

The clerk's transcript mainly consists of one document, the October 3, 2012 order after hearing, granting the motion to interpret and enforce the terms of the settlement agreement, and to appoint an elisor to execute Appellant's signature, if he did not sign the settlement documents in a timely manner. The remainder of the clerk's transcript 1 All further statutory references are to the Probate Code unless noted. There is a third family trust which need not be discussed here. This appeal is taken only from the order concerning certain trust assets, Hilldale Apartments. There is also a companion probate action concerning other trust assets (warehouses), in which similar orders were entered, but no separate issues are presented from that case. (In re Theodore A. Teacher Trust dated June 11, 1964 (Super. Ct. San Diego County, No. 37-2008-00151929-PR- TR-CTL).) 2 includes the notice of appeal and designation of record, and one reporter's transcript was designated.

We granted a request by Appellant to augment the record to include three additional reporter's transcripts from various hearings concerning the settlement efforts.

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.155; all rule references are to these rules.) Taken together, the transcripts show that on July 5, 2011, the parties apparently entered into a handwritten stipulation and order for settlement before the court (Judge Jay Bloom). At a continued hearing on December 15, 2011, the parties continued to discuss the settlement and on February 1, 2012, they signed the formalized settlement document. At various times, Appellant was represented by an attorney, but mainly he represented himself.

At an additional hearing on August 16, 2012 before Judge Cline, the court and counsel discussed the settlement terms, on how title would be held to the property, and Respondents brought a motion that they be enforced, through the appointment of an elisor if necessary. In pro per, Appellant presented his objections. The record does not include any moving or opposing papers. The court stated that the North County probate division was being closed and all matters were being reassigned to the central probate division.

However, the court clerk, as directed, obtained a hearing date for another hearing to be held before the same judge.

At that specially set September 27, 2012 hearing, the court summarized Appellant's objections, and stated that the issues presented were limited to whether the settlement agreement should be enforced, and observed that Appellant's previous claims and objections had been merged into the settlement agreement. The court found that 3 none of the objections currently being raised by Appellant was relevant to the subject of the motion. The court ruled that granting the motion was in the best interests of all the beneficiaries. Appellant had failed to set out how he was harmed by carrying out the settlement agreement, and his objections were without merit. Fees and costs were awarded against Appellant, and the appointment of an elisor was authorized if the settlement documents were not signed by October 3, 2012, and the formal order was filed that date. Appellant filed his notice of appeal.

Appellant has additionally requested that the record be augmented to include the stipulation and order for settlement entered into July 5, 2011, before the court (Judge Bloom). We are aware that Appellant previously requested augmentation of the record with numerous materials, including that document, but the copies provided were not in proper format and his request was denied. He has not provided a copy of that stipulation, and no such document is in the file. The request was deferred to this merits panel and is now denied as incomplete. Even if it were to be considered, it would not appear to resolve any of the current issues.

BURDEN ON APPEAL

An appellant has the burden to provide an adequate record and affirmatively to show reversible error. (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574.) It is the appellant's duty to support arguments in his or her briefs by references to the record on appeal, including citations to specific pages in the record. (Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 849, 856 (Duarte); Banning v. Newdow (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 4 438, 453, fn. 6 (Banning).) The arguments on appeal must be restricted to evidence in the record, and any reference to matters outside the record on appeal generally will not be considered. (Rule 8.204(a)(2)(C) [appellant's opening brief must provide a summary of significant facts limited to matters in the record on appeal].)

It is well established that "[i]n propria persona litigants are entitled to the same, but no greater, rights than represented litigants and are presumed to know the [procedural and court] rules." (Wantuch v. Davis (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 786, 795.) For any appellant, "[a]ppellate briefs must provide argument and legal authority for the positions taken. 'When an appellant fails to raise a point, or asserts it but fails to support it with reasoned argument and citations to authority, we treat the point as waived. [Citations.]' "

(Nelson v. Avondale Homeowners Assn. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 857, 862.) "We are not bound to develop appellants' arguments for them. [Citation.] The absence of cogent legal argument or citation to authority allows this court to treat the contentions as waived." (In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 830.)

III

APPLICABLE STANDARDS; ANALYSIS Appellant seeks de novo review of the probate court's order, claiming that only pure questions of law are presented, or alternatively, that the substantial evidence test may be applied where factual issues were resolved. (Diamond Benefits Life Insurance Co. v. Kroll (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1, 5.) Appellant objects to the procedure used in continuing the hearing, after the closure of the North County probate department, but he does not show any jurisdictional basis for such an objection. Appellant also makes 5 generalized due process claims, and argues that he did not receive fair hearings, although nothing in the record shows that he raised such objections below through any efforts to disqualify the judge.

As relevant here, Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 provides that parties to pending litigation may stipulate to settlement of a case, and "the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement." (Italics added.)

This appeal of the order enforcing the settlement agreement pursuant to the summary procedures of Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 is properly reviewed under the following standards:

"Factual determinations made by a trial court on a section 664.6 motion to enforce a settlement must be affirmed if the trial court's factual findings are supported by substantial evidence. [Citations.] Other rulings are reviewed de novo for errors of law." (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 815 (Weddington).)

Contract principles apply to such agreements: "A settlement agreement is a contract, and the legal principles which apply to contracts generally apply to settlement contracts. [Citation.] An essential element of any contract is 'consent.' [Citations.] The 'consent' must be 'mutual.' [Citations.]" (Weddington, supra, 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 810- 811.) A settlement is valid, binding, and enforceable under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 if the parties agreed to all material settlement terms. (Hines v. Luke (2008)

167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182.)

6 Due to the sparseness of this appellate record, the issues boil down to whether Appellant has presented any understandable, persuasive, or supported arguments on appeal, about any claimed detriment to him from the enforcement of the agreement that he signed. The probate court held several hearings and allowed opposition to be filed to the motion for enforcement, and then made specific findings in the reporter's transcript that Appellant's objections were without merit. The record supports the findings and the order. Appellant has failed to show that any error or abuse of discretion occurred in these respects.

DISPOSITION

The request to augment the record is denied and the order is affirmed.

Respondents are awarded costs on appeal.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

HALLER, J.

McDONALD, J.

Cites, in this corpus

Nelson v. Avondale Homeowners Assn. E044045 · 2009-02-27
Hines v. Lukes B199971 · 2008-10-27
In Re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke H031524 · 2008-07-08
Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital E020473 · 1999-06-03
Diamond Benefits Life Ins. Co. v. Troll E019044 · 1998-08-17
Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick B099986 · 1998-01-07
Wantuch v. Davis B079141 · 1995-02-24
Ballard v. Uribe L.A. 31799 · 1986-04-03