Rogers v. Nguyen (In re Ribal)
243 Cal. Rptr. 3d 177
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2019Background
- Nguyen and Ribal were domestic partners; Ribal lacked capacity and Rogers was appointed conservator. Rogers sued Nguyen for return of conservatorship property and financial/physical elder abuse.
- Trial court awarded "total" damages of $179,982 (comprised of $79,991 in compensatory damages doubled to $159,982, plus $20,000 personal injury), and later entered a judgment and awarded costs and attorney fees; this court affirmed the judgment on appeal.
- Rogers interpreted the judgment as additive (treating double damages as separate and resulting in a $259,973 total) and pursued additional postjudgment attorney fees for enforcement efforts.
- On remand Rogers moved for $45,807 (later reflected as $43,507.50) in enforcement attorney fees, claiming unpaid balance; Nguyen contended the underlying judgment had been satisfied before the motion was filed.
- The trial court granted Rogers the enforcement fees; Nguyen appealed, arguing (1) the true judgment total was $179,982 and (2) Rogers’s fee motion was untimely because the judgment had already been satisfied under Code Civ. Proc. § 685.080(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rogers) | Defendant's Argument (Nguyen) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper amount of underlying judgment | Judgment reflects compensatory $79,991 plus separate "double damages" $159,982, totaling $259,973 | Statement of decision and 2015 minute order show total damages were $179,982; Rogers’s interpretation is incorrect | Court: Underlying judgment is $179,982 (double damages included within that total); Rogers’s $259,973 theory unsupported |
| Whether enforcement attorney-fee motion was timely under CCP § 685.080(a) | Motion seeks enforcement fees for collection efforts and identifies outstanding balance | Judgment had been satisfied before fee motion was filed; statute requires fee motion before satisfaction | Court: Motion was untimely because Nguyen satisfied the judgment before Rogers moved; fee award reversed |
| Whether "double damages" award actually trebled damages (i.e., punitive/treble) | Interprets "in addition to any other remedies" in Prob. Code § 859 to allow additive calculation (effectively trebling) | Statutory text and trial documents show only double damages were awarded; trebling not supported by law | Court: Treble interpretation is absurd and unsupported; double damages stand as applied in judgment (but merits of judgment not reviewable here) |
| Ability of appellate court to modify original judgment on merits | Rogers sought to defend original judgment amount and awards | Nguyen sought modification/attack on double damages in part | Court: Cannot revisit or modify merits of final judgment in this appeal; appeal limited to fee order |
Key Cases Cited
- Chodos v. Borman, 227 Cal.App.4th 76 (review of entitlement to attorney fees is de novo)
- Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court, 18 Cal.4th 1 (appellate limits on reviewing final judgments)
- Estate of Kraus, 184 Cal.App.4th 103 (Probate Code § 859 double-damage penalty context)
- Hill v. Superior Court, 244 Cal.App.4th 1281 (distinguishing § 859 double damages from punitive damages)
- Lucky United Properties Investment, Inc. v. Lee, 185 Cal.App.4th 125 (purpose of § 685.080(a) requiring fee motion before judgment satisfaction)
- Colvig v. RKO Gen., 232 Cal.App.2d 56 (principle that writing controls interpretation absent absurdity)