Arnold v. Villarreal
Decision Date | 06 April 2017 |
Docket Number | No. 14-3204,14-3204 |
Citation | 853 F.3d 384 |
Parties | Jonathan ARNOLD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Leticia VILLARREAL, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Michael D. Smith, Attorney, Law Office of Michael D. Smith, P.C., Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff–Appellant.
Robert P. Cummins, Attorney, Norman, Hanson & Detroy, Portland, ME, Hall Adams, III, Attorney, Law Offices of Hall Adams LLC, Chicago, IL, for Defendant–Appellee.
Before Flaum, Easterbrook, and Sykes, Circuit Judges.
In the fall of 2004, Jonathan Arnold and Leticia Villarreal exchanged marriage vows in California in a ceremony solemnized by a priest and a rabbi. But they failed to file their marriage license with the county recorder within 10 days of the ceremony as required by California law. Shortly before the license expired, the county recorder sent a letter informing them that the license had not yet been filed and reminding them that they needed to file it to complete the legal process. The couple did nothing and the license expired unfiled.
Although they were not legally married, the couple remained together for about three years, had a child, and purchased a condo in California. By the summer of 2007, their relationship had deteriorated, and they separately filed for divorce—she in California, he in Illinois. The divorce proceedings were terminated when they stipulated that they were never married.
Arnold then sued Villarreal in federal court in Chicago on various fraud theories. He claimed that she tricked him into believing the two were legally married to induce him to give her gifts, including the California condo. The district court entered summary judgment for Villarreal, characterizing the suit as "frivolous." Frivolous is an apt description. First, the undisputed facts show that Villarreal told Arnold early on that she suspected they weren't legally married. Indeed, she insisted that they get a new marriage license and do the whole thing over. They obtained a new license but did nothing further.
Second, even if we accept that at some point along the way Villarreal lulled Arnold with reassurances that they were legally married, Arnold was not justified in relying on her representations. He knew, because the county recorder had told them in writing, that the marriage license had not been filed as required by California law. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. We also grant Villarreal's motion for sanctions against Arnold for filing a frivolous appeal.
Arnold and Villarreal met in 2003. In January 2004 Arnold proposed marriage and Villarreal accepted. On October 1, 2004, the couple applied for and received a marriage license from the Los Angeles County recorder's office. The license was valid through December 30, 2004. On November 21 they held a wedding ceremony in the picturesque resort town of Dana Point. Father Erwin Castro, one of two clergymen who participated in the ceremony (the other was a rabbi), signed the couple's marriage license but failed to complete and file it. He did not fill in the date and location of the ceremony; he did not obtain a witness's signature; and he failed to perform his statutory duty to return the completed license to the county recorder within 10 days of the ceremony. See CAL. FAM. CODE § 359(e) ( ). Arnold accuses Villarreal of taking the marriage license away from Castro. Villarreal disputes this, but the key fact is undisputed: the completed marriage license was never filed with the recorder's office.
On December 27 the couple received a letter from the recorder's office informing them that their license had not yet been returned for filing and would expire on December 30. The letter urged them to immediately address the matter and reminded them that filing a completed license was essential to protect their "marital and property rights." The couple took no action in response to the letter.
In mid-2005 as the couple anticipated the birth of their first child, Villarreal grew uneasy about the validity of their marriage and told Arnold that she thought their failure to file the marriage license meant that they weren't legally married. Arnold dismissed her concerns. Nevertheless, in an attempt to appease her, Arnold agreed to a do-over. In August 2005 they applied for and received another marriage license. Remarkably, they again failed to follow through, and a completed marriage license was never filed.
Villarreal gave birth to their baby on August 21, 2005. About eight months later Arnold signed a power of attorney in favor of Villarreal, which she used to obtain financing and purchase a California condominium in both their names. The loan and purchase documents refer to the pair as a married couple. Arnold later transferred his interest in the condo to Villarreal. He claims he gave her the condo—as well as other gifts—only because he believed they were married.
After nearly three years, the couple's relationship began to disintegrate and they separated. In the summer of 2007, they filed separate divorce petitions—Arnold in Illinois and Villarreal in California. They eventually stipulated that they were never legally married, and the divorce proceedings were terminated.1
Apparently unwilling to leave the matter there, Arnold sued Villarreal in federal court in Illinois alleging various fraud claims and seeking compensatory damages totaling about $1 million and another $1 million in punitive damages. He accused Villarreal of tricking him into giving her his property by misrepresenting that they were lawfully married. Villarreal moved for summary judgment, initially taking the position that Arnold's fraud suit failed because he wasn't deceived about anything: they really were validly married under California law. The district judge stayed the case while Villarreal returned to California state court to try to undo her stipulation. The state court refused to vacate its judgment.
Once the California court had spoken, the district judge lifted the stay, and Villarreal again moved for summary judgment. This time she argued that Arnold's fraud suit failed because he could not have justifiably relied on any misrepresentations she might have made about the legal validity of their marriage. Arnold responded on the merits and also sought time for additional discovery under Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Judge John Grady, the district judge initially assigned to the case, granted Villarreal's motion and denied Arnold's Rule 56(d) request. The judge rejected Arnold's argument that he justifiably relied on Villarreal's representations as both "preposterous" on its face and utterly belied by the undisputed record evidence. The judge also held that "[n]o amount of discovery would remedy the flaws in Arnold's frivolous theory."
Arnold moved to alter the judgment under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. He argued that the court had failed to consider all of the relevant evidence in the record. Meanwhile, in anticipation of Judge Grady's retirement, the case was administratively transferred to Judge Amy St. Eve. She denied the Rule 59(e) motion, agreeing with Judge Grady that "[t]he undisputed facts amply demonstrate that Arnold's claims are frivolous."
Although his claims had been deemed frivolous by not one but two district judges, Arnold nevertheless filed this appeal. Villarreal responded on the merits and moved for sanctions against Arnold for filing a frivolous appeal.
The parties agree that California law applies to Arnold's claims, so to the extent that the appeal entails a dispute about the law, our task is to predict how the Supreme Court of California would resolve it.2 See BMD Contractors, Inc. v. Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md. , 679 F.3d 643, 648 (7th Cir. 2012).
As relevant here, Arnold invokes three different provisions of California law: California Civil Code sections 1709 (fraudulent deceit), 1572 (actual fraud), and 1573 (constructive fraud). We do not need to analyze these claims separately. Each one requires Arnold to prove that he justifiably relied on Villarreal's misrepresentations regarding the validity of their marriage. Conroy v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. , 45 Cal.4th 1244, 91 Cal.Rptr.3d 532, 203 P.3d 1127, 1135 (2009) (fraudulent deceit); Chi. Title Ins. Co. v. Superior Court , 174 Cal.App.3d 1142, 220 Cal.Rptr. 507, 513 (1985) ( ). Given the undisputed facts, Arnold cannot prevail on this common element of his fraud claims.
We begin, however, by noting the distinct possibility that Arnold's claims are categorically barred as a matter of law. California courts follow the general rule that one may never justifiably rely on a representation of law (as opposed to a representation of fact) because the law is equally accessible to all. See Cicone v. URS Corp. , 183 Cal.App.3d 194, 227 Cal.Rptr. 887, 891 (1986) ; 5 WITKIN , SUMMARY OF CAL. LAW (10 TH ), TORTS § 779 (2005); accord Lyon Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Ill. Paper & Copier Co. , 732 F.3d 755, 765 (7th Cir. 2013) ( ). The misrepresentations alleged here appear to be legal in nature: Arnold claims that Villarreal misled him about the legal status of their relationship and the legal consequences of their failure to file their marriage license with the county recorder.
The general rule is subject to a "fiduciary relationship" exception, however, and the exception might apply here. 37 AM. JUR. 2 D Fraud and Deceit § 103 (2016). Arnold and Villarreal did not have a literal fiduciary relationship, but California courts appear to have extended the fiduciary exception to a broader category of "confidential relationships." Cicone , 227 Cal.Rptr. at 891 ; Bank of Am. v. Sanchez , 3 Cal.App.2d 238, 38 P.2d 787, 789 (1934) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Matter Of Lisse
...an appellant simply repeats previously rejected, frivolous arguments or pursues an appeal to harass their adversary. Arnold v. Villarreal , 853 F.3d 384, 389 (7th Cir. 2017). Nora's arguments almost entirely regurgitate points she pressed before the bankruptcy court, which the district cour......
-
3BTech Inc. v. Garelick
...not fall within the exception solely because a plaintiff's “factual allegations touch on the subject of marriage.” Arnold v. Villarreal, 853 F.3d 384, 387 n.2 (7th Cir. 2017). The Plaintiffs have brought two RICO claims and two tort claims against Mr. Garelick for allegedly conspiring with ......
-
Christopoulos v. Trout
...a summary judgment motion need not be delayed to allow a party to conduct discovery on a meritless claim or defense. Arnold v. Villarreal , 853 F.3d 384, 389 (7th Cir. 2017). Laches is an equitable doctrine. " ‘Laches,’ the corruption of an Old French word (lasche ) meaning ‘lax,’ in law me......
-
Smith v. OSF Healthcare Sys., 18-3325
...delay decision on a summary judgment motion to allow time for discovery on an obviously meritless claim or defense. Arnold v. Villarreal , 853 F.3d 384, 389 (7th Cir. 2017).2 Motions for summary judgment have become so common in modern federal civil practice that case-management plans often......