Elena S. v. Kroutik
247 Cal. App. 4th 570
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Vladislav Kroutik and Elena S. had a relationship that deteriorated after alleged sexual assault, threats and other conduct; Elena sought a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO).
- After a three-hour contested hearing in August 2015 before Commissioner William Y. Wood (testimony, cross-examination, ~20 exhibits, closing arguments), the commissioner issued a five-year DVRO for Elena.
- Vlad represented himself on appeal and declined to provide a reporter's transcript or settled statement, electing to proceed on the judgment roll (clerk's transcript only).
- Vlad argued the commissioner's order was void because there was no stipulation (written or oral) allowing a commissioner to hear the matter.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the DVRO, holding Vlad failed to meet his burden to show absence of an oral stipulation and that his active participation in the hearing constituted implied (tantamount) consent to the commissioner.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Elena) | Defendant's Argument (Kroutik) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the commissioner's order is void for lack of a stipulation to a commissioner | The record does not show any stipulation, but defendant participated; court should presume regularity and treat participation as implied consent | There was no stipulation (oral or written) consenting to a commissioner; without one the commissioner's ruling is void | Affirmed: defendant failed to show lack of stipulation; participation implied consent under the "tantamount stipulation" doctrine |
| Whether appellant's failure to provide reporter's transcript defeats his challenge | The absence of a transcript prevents showing an oral stipulation existed, but appellant chose to forgo the transcript so the judgment roll presumption favors the order | The missing transcript means the record cannot show an on-the-record stipulation; order must be reversed if stipulation lacking | Held for respondent: appellant elected to proceed without transcript and thus cannot overcome presumption the proceedings were proper |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Horton, 54 Cal.3d 82 (1991) (party participation can create an implied or "tantamount" stipulation to a subordinate officer presiding)
- In re Mark L., 34 Cal.3d 171 (1983) (implied stipulation arises from parties' conduct allowing subordinate officer to perform judge-only functions)
- Ballard v. Uribe, 41 Cal.3d 564 (1986) (appellant bears burden to show reversible error by an adequate record)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court, 57 Cal.2d 450 (1962) (principles supporting presumptions in favor of judgments where record is silent)
- Michaels v. Turk, 239 Cal.App.4th 1411 (2015) (distinguishable; court declined to find implied consent where record lacked evidence parties saw notice and local rule required on-the-record stipulation)