Rhue v. Superior Court
B283248
| Cal. Ct. App. | Nov 28, 2017Background
- Petitioner Harolyn Rhue sued Signet Domain, LLC and Sam Nam to quiet title; defendants did not appear and defaults were entered.
- Trial court, on its own motion, set a dismissal hearing, later vacated the default against Sam Nam, and then granted judgment on the pleadings against Rhue after denying her reconsideration motion; minute orders gave no reasons.
- The August hearing was not reported; Rhue timely moved for a settled statement to preserve a record for appeal.
- The trial court denied the motion, stating no settled statement was necessary because the ruling was based on papers and argument and no testimony was taken; it also asserted difficulty reconstructing the hearing.
- Rhue petitioned for a writ of mandate in the Court of Appeal seeking an order directing the trial court to prepare a settled statement.
- The Court of Appeal granted the writ, finding the trial court abused its discretion by arbitrarily denying the settled-statement request and failing to give a justifiable excuse.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly denied a motion to prepare a settled statement when the hearing was unreported | Rhue argued she satisfied rule requirements and needed a settled statement because oral proceedings were unreported and material to appellate review | Trial court/Superior Court argued no settled statement was necessary because the ruling rested on papers and legal issues (de novo review) and no testimony was taken; also claimed difficulty reconstructing the hearing | Court held the denial was an abuse of discretion: trial court must provide a justifiable excuse to deny and may not arbitrarily deprive a litigant of the right to appellate review; ordered a settled statement prepared |
| Whether difficulty of reconstructing the hearing justifies denying a settled statement | Rhue argued reconstruction difficulty is not a valid ground to deny a settled statement and the trial court must work with parties to prepare one | Trial court asserted it could not reliably reconstruct what occurred at oral argument | Court rejected this as a justifiable excuse, citing precedent that inability to recall proceedings does not permit denial |
| Whether de novo legal rulings negate need for a settled statement | Rhue contended some rulings involved discretionary decisions (vacating default, dismissal, denial of reconsideration) requiring abuse-of-discretion review and possibly oral-record evidence | Superior Court relied on cases where transcript was unnecessary for purely legal de novo review | Court distinguished Chodos and similar authority, noting discretionary rulings here may require a record; settled statement could be indispensable |
| Whether trial court erred by failing to give written reasons when denying motion under Rule 8.137 | Rhue argued the rule requires the court to grant or deny in writing and provide justification if denying | Trial court did not provide a justifiable written excuse; it framed its reasons in minute order language | Court held the trial court failed to provide the required justifiable excuse in writing and thus abused its discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Randall v. Mousseau, 2 Cal.App.5th 929 (2016) (trial court cannot arbitrarily deny settled statement; must cooperate to preserve appellate record)
- Mooney v. Superior Court, 245 Cal.App.4th 523 (2016) (trial court must grant or deny settled-statement motion in writing and explain denial)
- Western States Const. Co. v. Municipal Court, 38 Cal.2d 146 (1951) (trial court’s inability to recall proceedings is not a ground to deny reconstruction)
- Chodos v. Cole, 210 Cal.App.4th 692 (2012) (transcript may be unnecessary where ruling is purely legal and parties did not rely on oral argument)
- Southern California Gas Co. v. Flannery, 5 Cal.App.5th 476 (2016) (for abuse-of-discretion review, reporter’s transcript or settled statement may be indispensable)
- Denham v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.3d 557 (1970) (appealed judgments are presumed correct; appellant bears burden of providing adequate record)
- Maria P. v. Riles, 43 Cal.3d 1281 (1987) (failure to provide adequate record results in issues resolved against appellant)