Sorensen v. Tran CA4/1
D077620
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 8, 2021Background
- Siblings Ann Sorensen and Thu Dung Tran disputed ownership of a San Diego house bought by their parents; in August 2015 the quiet-title trial court found Sorensen owned 62.5% and Tran (through her children) 37.5%, a judgment the Court of Appeal later affirmed.
- Sorensen filed for partition; after the property was sold (≈$510,000), the trial court conducted an accounting to allocate sale proceeds and determine reimbursement claims.
- Tran claimed extensive pre-2015 expenditures (mortgage payments, repairs, taxes, insurance) and submitted a compiled expense exhibit; Sorensen disputed many items and alleged lack of proof.
- The trial court limited recoverable items to expenditures incurred after August 20, 2015 (the quiet-title statement of decision), and further limited compensable items to those "legally or financially necessary to preserve the property" (principally taxes and insurance), treating earlier payments as gifts or voluntary.
- The court admitted Tran’s compilation for the record but awarded only modest tax and insurance credits (Tran ~$20,166; Sorensen ~$1,933 and $2,622 for insurance) and denied claims for mortgage reimbursement, repairs, improvements, rental income, and vandalism losses.
- Tran appealed, arguing the court erred by excluding/rejecting her pre-2015 evidence, misclassifying pre-2015 payments as gifts, and improperly relying on res judicata; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sorensen) | Defendant's Argument (Tran) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court improperly excluded evidence of pre-2015 mortgage, repair, and improvement payments | Court may limit or deny credits absent adequate proof; prior partition findings govern | Tran: pre-2015 payments are typical reimbursable partition charges and evidence should be admitted | Court permitted evidence but, based on credibility findings and procedural posture, declined reimbursement for most pre-2015 items; no abuse of discretion affirmed |
| Whether pre-2015 payments must be treated as gifts (nonreimbursable) | Payments were voluntary or unsupported; court reasonably found they were made under incorrect ownership assumptions | Tran: payments were made in good faith to preserve or improve property and so are recoverable | Court characterized pre-2015 payments as gifts (or rejected them on credibility/substantial-evidence grounds); affirmed |
| Whether mortgage payments (1976–2004) are recoverable | Sorensen: no sufficient proof and equitable factors support denying credit | Tran: paid ~$242,898 toward mortgage and is entitled to pro rata reimbursement | Trial court declined to award mortgage-credit; appellate court found no reversible abuse of discretion and affirmed (concurrence would remand limited mortgage issue) |
| Whether the court improperly applied res judicata to bar pre-2015 claims | Sorensen: partition/accounting rulings were properly based on prior adjudication and evidence deficiencies | Tran: August 2015 quiet-title decision did not resolve accounting and cannot bar reimbursement evidence | Appellate court found no clear record that res judicata was relied upon; even if argued, Tran failed to brief the doctrine adequately; affirmed judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompson v. Asimos, 6 Cal.App.5th 970 (2016) (appellate courts accept unchallenged trial findings and construe facts to support judgment)
- Denham v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.3d 557 (1970) (presumption that lower-court judgment is correct)
- Wallace v. Daley, 220 Cal.App.3d 1028 (1990) (partition actions may include credits for taxes, mortgage payments, repairs, and improvements)
- Cummings v. Dessel, 13 Cal.App.5th 589 (2017) (abuse-of-discretion review of partition adjustments)
- Pope v. Babick, 229 Cal.App.4th 1238 (2014) (substantial-evidence standard and appellant’s duty to present favorable and unfavorable evidence)
- Milian v. De Leon, 181 Cal.App.3d 1185 (1986) (court may deny reimbursement when parties’ agreement or evidence supports equal division irrespective of contributions)
- Stevens v. Stevens, 129 Cal.App.2d 19 (1954) (absence of reporter’s transcript requires presumption trial court acted regularly)
- Border Business Park, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 142 Cal.App.4th 1538 (2006) (appellate courts interpret the record to determine what the trial court actually did)
- Nationwide Biweekly Admin., Inc. v. Superior Court of Alameda County, 9 Cal.5th 279 (2020) (equity has broad powers but cannot contravene statutory law)