Michaels v. Turk
239 Cal. App. 4th 1411
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Michaels (plaintiff) sought a domestic violence restraining order in Riverside County after alleging Turk (defendant/appellant) posted harassing comments about him on the public financial forum iHub.
- The commissioner found Turk (self‑represented at the hearing) had posted harassing internet comments and issued a three‑year DV restraining order prohibiting her from posting negative/harassing communications about Michaels online.
- The parties have a long history of family litigation in Orange County, including prior mutual restraining orders and custody disputes; this proceeding was limited to the online posting allegations.
- Turk contended at the hearing that some posts were not hers and represented herself throughout; there is no record evidence she agreed to have a commissioner preside.
- On appeal, Turk argued the restraining order is void because she did not stipulate (nor is there a record of stipulation) to the commissioner acting as a temporary judge.
- The trial court’s local rule requires self‑represented parties be asked on the record to stipulate to a commissioner; the record here contains no such on‑the‑record stipulation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a commissioner could validly preside without a party's stipulation | Michaels: implied consent suffices; courts post notices and lack of objection equals stipulation | Turk: she did not consent and was not asked on the record; no record stipulation exists | Court: Commissioner lacked authority absent on‑record stipulation; order is void and reversed |
| Whether constructive/posted notice off the record can supply consent | Michaels: signs/notices amount to implied consent even if not in record | Turk: absent a record showing she saw/consented, no implied stipulation | Court: Consent must appear on the record; off‑record notices insufficient |
| Whether any error was harmless | Michaels: any defect is harmless and local rule noncompliance is routinely waived | Turk: constitutional requirement of consent is not subject to harmless‑error waiver | Court: Lack of constitutional consent is not harmless; reversal required |
| Whether other merits of the restraining order needed review | Michaels: substantive order should stand despite procedural defect | Turk: procedural defect is dispositive | Court: Because commissioner lacked authority, court did not reach merits; reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Tijerina, 1 Cal.3d 41 (1969) (commissioner lacks authority absent stipulation)
- Rooney v. Vermont Investment Corp., 10 Cal.3d 351 (1973) (commissioner cannot act without stipulation on the record)
- Lovret v. Seyfarth, 22 Cal.App.3d 841 (1972) (absence of written or oral stipulation renders commissioner’s actions void)
- In re Marriage of Galis, 149 Cal.App.3d 147 (1983) (unwilling litigant cannot be forced to trial before commissioner; stipulation must appear)
- In re Frye, 150 Cal.App.3d 407 (1983) (constructive notice from posted signs insufficient absent record evidence)
- In re Steven A., 15 Cal.App.4th 754 (1993) (stipulation construed by its terms; revocation of stipulation defeats commissioner’s authority)
- In re Horton, 54 Cal.3d 82 (1991) (doctrine of tantamount stipulation applies only when consent appears in the record)