Little v. Nau CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D063792 · 2014-04-15 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. 37-2011-00087-131-CU-BC-CTL
Trial judge: William S. Dato
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: civil
Panel: McINTYRE (author), O'Rourke, Patricia D. Benke

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:42Z · confidence high

The trial court entered judgment in favor of the defendant after a bench trial, concluding the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence regarding repayment of a loan. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, finding the plaintiff's claims of bias and evidentiary error forfeited and the failure to request a statement of decision resulted in an implied findings standard of review that supported the judgment.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Judgment in favor of defendant based on insufficient evidence of repayment “concluding that Little had "failed to present sufficient evidence regarding repayment."”	substantial evidence	correct	agree with court agree with court
Claim of judicial bias “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.”	de novo	correct	agree with court agree with court
Failure to make specific findings “Where a party fails to request a statement of decision, the doctrine of implied findings applies.”	substantial evidence	correct	agree with court agree with court
Exclusion of evidence “This claim, however, is not supported by the record or reasoned argument and we deem it forfeited.”	de novo	correct	agree with court agree with court

Authorities

relied: Nelson v. Avondale Homeowners Assn. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 857 — Failure to provide analysis or citations to the record and authority results in forfeiture of the claim.
relied: Grant-Burton v. Covenant Care, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1361 — Supports the requirement for adequate briefing to avoid forfeiture.
relied: Moulton Niguel Water Dist. v. Colombo (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1210 — The trial court's rejection of claims does not amount to improper bias and prejudice.
relied: Shaw v. County of Santa Cruz (2008) 170 Cal.App.4th 229 — When a statement of decision is not requested, the doctrine of implied findings applies, presuming findings necessary to support the judgment.
relied: Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122 — It is the burden of the party challenging a judgment to provide an adequate record to assess claims of error.
relied: Allen v. Toten (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 1079 — On a judgment roll appeal, the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings is not open.
relied: Nielson v. Gibson (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 318 — On a judgment roll appeal, the court presumes findings are supported by substantial evidence and considers only if the judgment is supported by findings or if reversible error appears on the face of the record.
relied: Leslie v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 117 — Rules of appellate procedure apply to self-represented parties.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly applies the doctrine of implied findings and the rules governing judgment roll appeals, which limit the scope of review when a reporter's transcript is not provided. It properly deems the bias and evidentiary claims forfeited due to the appellant's failure to provide adequate argument and record citations.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

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

After a two-day bench trial, the San Diego Superior Court entered judgment for the estate administrator on Little's breach of contract, declaratory relief, constructive trust and unjust enrichment claims, finding she failed to present sufficient evidence regarding repayment. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the judicial bias and evidentiary exclusion claims forfeited for lack of argument, the statement-of-decision claim barred by failure to request one, and the sufficiency challenge foreclosed on a judgment roll appeal lacking a reporter's transcript.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Trial court's alleged bias against plaintiff “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.”	unclear	not reached	agree with court Forfeiture for failure to support a point with argument and record citations is well established under rule 8.204(a)(1)(C) and Nelson. The court also correctly noted that adverse rulings alone do not establish bias, citing Moulton Niguel.
Trial court's failure to make specific findings (no statement of decision) “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.”	de novo	correct	agree with court Code of Civil Procedure section 632 requires a statement of decision only upon timely request; absent a request, the doctrine of implied findings applies under Shaw. The court correctly applied the statute and doctrine.
Judgment for defendant based on insufficient evidence of repayment / agreement “On such an appeal, '[the] question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings is not open.'”	substantial evidence	correct	agree with court Without a reporter's transcript, the appeal is on the judgment roll and the appellate court must presume the evidence supports the findings, reviewing only for error on the face of the record. Ketchum, Allen v. Toten and Nielson support this approach, and the lodged exhibits did not show the alleged agreement.
Exclusion of evidence at trial “This claim, however, is not supported by the record or reasoned argument and we deem it forfeited.”	unclear	not reached	agree with court With no reporter's transcript and no reasoned argument, the court properly treated the evidentiary claim as forfeited under Nelson. The result is consistent with the burden on the appellant to furnish an adequate record.

Authorities

relied: Nelson v. Avondale Homeowners Assn. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 857 — Appellate claims unsupported by reasoned argument and citations to the record and authority are forfeited.
relied: Grant-Burton v. Covenant Care, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1361 — Points not supported by argument or authority may be treated as waived on appeal.
relied: Moulton Niguel Water Dist. v. Colombo (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1210 — A trial court's rejection of a party's claims after weighing evidence does not amount to improper bias.
relied: Shaw v. County of Santa Cruz (2008) 170 Cal.App.4th 229 — Where no statement of decision is requested, the doctrine of implied findings applies and all findings necessary to support the judgment are presumed.
relied: Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122 — The appellant bears the burden of providing an adequate record to assess claims of error.
relied: Allen v. Toten (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 1079 — On a judgment roll appeal, the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings is not open to review.
relied: Nielson v. Gibson (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 318 — Without a reporter's transcript, findings are presumed supported and review is limited to whether the judgment is supported by the findings or error appears on the face of the record.
relied: Leslie v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 117 — Self-represented litigants are held to the same rules of appellate procedure as represented parties.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly applies forfeiture, section 632, the implied findings doctrine, and judgment roll appeal principles with appropriate authorities, and each argument raised is addressed. The analysis is brief but adequate given the appellant's inadequate record and briefing.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

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.

Cites, in this corpus

Nielsen v. Gibson C059291 · 2009-10-13
Nelson v. Avondale Homeowners Assn. E044045 · 2009-02-27
Shaw v. County of Santa Cruz H031108 · 2008-12-19
Moulton Niguel Water District v. Colombo G030298 · 2003-09-10
Grant-Burton v. Covenant Care, Inc. B151342 · 2002-07-30
Ketchum v. Moses S077350 · 2001-02-26
Leslie v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance B052355 · 1991-08-22
Allen v. Toten Civ. 23398 · 1985-10-02