Bono v. Clark

• Decision Date: 04 December 2002
• Docket Number: No. H023029.,H023029.
• Citation: 103 Cal.App.4th 1409,128 Cal.Rptr.2d 31
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Virginia BONO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. John CLARK, as Executor, etc., Defendant and Respondent.

128 Cal.Rptr.2d 31

103 Cal.App.4th 1409

Virginia BONO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. John CLARK, as Executor, etc., Defendant and Respondent.

No. H023029.

Court of Appeal, Sixth District.

December 4, 2002.

Review Denied March 5, 2003.

Ernest L. Miller, Miller, Domino & Ackerman, Attorney for Plaintiff and Appellant.

William G. Clark, San Jose, Clark & Clark, Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent.

WUNDERLICH, J.

The plaintiff in this action asserts various property claims against her late husband's estate. Plaintiffs principal claim is for the recovery of community property used to improve the husband's separate real estate during the parties' 17-year marriage. Plaintiffs other claims relate to personal property left in the husband's possession when the parties separated.

The trial court disposed of all of plaintiffs claims adversely to her, some by summary adjudication, and the rest by a defense judgment after trial. Plaintiff challenges all of those determinations on appeal.

As we explain, we conclude that the judgment contains errors of law that require reversal and remand.

FACTS

The plaintiff is this action is Virginia "Ginni" Bono (plaintiff). The defendant is John Clark, executor of the Estate of John Bono (defendant). John Bono (decedent) was plaintiffs husband.

Plaintiff and decedent were married in 1977 and separated in 1994.

Prior to his marriage to plaintiff, decedent owned real property located at 4141 Canada Road in Gilroy, California. Decedent and his brother had purchased the Gilroy property in 1960 for $12,500. The two brothers later divided the 97-acre property. Following that division, decedent's property comprised some 46.5 acres and included a 10-foot by 60-foot trailer. Sometime after 1972, plaintiff moved into the trailer with her son. Up until then, the trailer had never been occupied. At that time, the trailer was "dilapidated"; it had no electricity, no telephone service, and no laundry facilities. Despite the condition of the trailer, plaintiff testified that the property was worth $50,000 in 1977, when she and decedent married.

Throughout their 17-year marriage, the Bonos used the trailer on the Gilroy property as their residence. During that time, they made extensive improvements to it. Among other things, they converted a large porch into several rooms (bedroom, dining room, laundry room, office), and they added a large family room and a concrete patio. They remodeled the kitchen and bathroom and installed new carpet in the bedroom. They installed a new well and brought electrical service to the property. The improvements effectively converted the 600-square-foot trailer into a 1920-square-foot home. According to plaintiffs testimony, the total cost of the improvements was between $77,500 and $80,500.

The Bonos separated on Labor Day 1994. Plaintiff moved from the property at that time; a mutual restraining order, issued in September 1994, prevented her from returning.

In June 1995, decedent petitioned for dissolution of the marriage. Plaintiff answered the petition in August 1995, and both parties filed property declarations. Thereafter, however, neither party took any action to resolve their property disputes or to bring the dissolution action to a conclusion.

In November 1998, while the dissolution action was still pending, decedent died.

In 2000, decedent's estate sold the real property for $555,000.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In January 2000, plaintiff filed her first amended complaint against the estate.

The complaint stated two causes of action: the first was for declaratory relief; the second was for conversion. In the prayer of the complaint, plaintiff sought a declaration of her community property rights, a determination of community property funds expended to improve decedent's separate property during the marriage, and damages for conversion of plaintiffs separate property.

Defendant promptly answered plaintiffs complaint.

Thereafter, in October 2000, defendant moved for summary judgment or, alternatively, for summary adjudication. Plaintiff opposed the motions.

The trial court heard and decided defendant's motions in November 2000. The court denied summary judgment, but partially granted the summary adjudication motion. As to the first cause of action, for declaratory relief, the court concluded that neither the statute of limitations nor the doctrine of laches barred relief as a matter of law. Nevertheless, the court concluded, plaintiff had no right to reimbursement of community funds used to improve decedent's separate property, because she consented to the use of those funds for that purpose. Turning to plaintiffs second cause of action, for conversion, the court granted summary adjudication on the ground that it was time-barred.

In February 2001, the matter proceeded to trial on the remaining issues. During the two-day bench trial, the court gave the parties wide latitude in putting on evidence, despite the prior summary adjudication order. Thus, plaintiff was permitted to offer evidence in support of her theory that she had a pro tanto community property interest in the decedent's property despite the prior ruling denying her reimbursement claim as a matter of law. Defendant was allowed to offer evidence in support of the estate's laches defense.

In March 2001, the trial court filed its statement of decision. In it, the court first described the two issues that were previously adjudicated adversely to plaintiff— reimbursement of community property contributions to the real property and conversion of her separate property—and explained that those claims were res judicata. The court next rejected plaintiffs claim of a pro tanto community interest in decedent's real property. The court also disposed of plaintiffs community property claims to certain items of personal property, including livestock and motor vehicles. Finally, the court determined that plaintiff was guilty of laches in bringing this action.

In April 2001, the court entered judgment for defendant.

Plaintiff promptly appealed both from the judgment and from the earlier summary adjudication order.

DISCUSSION

I. First Cause of Action: Community Property Claims

A. Laches

We consider the affirmative defense of laches at the threshold, because the trial court's finding of laches, if affirmed, would be dispositive of the first cause of action for declaratory relief.

1. Standard of review

Defendant urges us to review the trial court's finding of laches deferentially, for an abuse of discretion only. (See, In re Marriage of Plescia (1997) 59 Cal. App.4th 252, 256, 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 120["[I]n the absence of a palpable abuse of discretion, the trial court's finding of laches will not be disturbed on appeal. [Citation.]"] Accord, In re Marriage of Copeman (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 324, 333, 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 801.)

We decline to do so here. As the California Supreme Court recently recognized, there are circumstances in which it is error to review a laches determination "under the deferential abuse of discretion standard." (Johnson v. City of Loma Linda (2000) 24 Cal.4th 61, 68, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 316, 5 P.3d 874 [the appellate court erred in applying abuse of discretion standard where the trial court's laches determination was the basis for its grant of summary judgment, which is subject to de novo review].)

"Generally speaking, the existence of laches is a question of fact to be determined by the trial court in light of all of the applicable circumstances, and in the absence of manifest injustice or a lack of substantial support in the evidence its determination will be sustained. [Citations.]" (Miller v. Eisenhower Medical Center (1980) 27 Cal.3d 614, 624, 166 Cal. Rptr. 826, 614 P.2d 258.) In other words, appellate courts review such determinations for "manifest injustice" or for "lack of substantial ... evidence." (Ibid.)

In cases such as this, where the finding of laches is made after trial, the proper appellate focus is the evidence in support of the finding. Even the two appellate decisions cited above, which employ the deferential abuse of discretion standard, do not disregard the evidence. (See, In re Marriage of Plescia, supra, 59 Cal. App.4th at p. 257, 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 120 ["In light of the record, the trial court did not palpably abuse its discretion"]. And see, In re Marriage of Copeman, supra, 90 Cal.App.4th at p. 326, 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 801["[T]he trial court's finding of laches was supported by the evidence"].) As the California Supreme Court recently explained: "Generally, a trial court's laches ruling will be sustained on appeal if there is substantial evidence to support the ruling." (Johnson v. City of Loma Linda, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 67, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 316, 5 P.3d 874, citing Miller v. Eisenhower Medical Center, supra, 27 Cal.3d at p. 624, 166 Cal.Rptr. 826, 614 P.2d 258.) We therefore examine the trial record for evidence in support of the trial court's finding of laches.

2. The doctrine and its application here

Laches may bar relief in equity to those who neglect their rights, where such neglect operates to the detriment of others. (See generally, 11 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (9th ed. 1990) Equity, §§ 14-16, pp. 690-694.) Given its nature as an equitable defense, however, there are recognized limits on application of the doctrine of laches. For one thing, the doctrine "is not applied strictly between near relatives." (Berniker v. Berniker (1947) 30 Cal.2d 439, 448-449, 182 P.2d 557, citing Rottman v. Rottman (1921) 55 Cal.App. 624, 632, 204 P. 46 [spouses].) More generally, "laches is not technical and arbitrary and is not designed to punish a plaintiff. It can only be invoked where a refusal would be to permit an unwarranted injustice. Whether or not the doctrine applies depends upon the circumstances of each case." (Hiett v. Inland Finance Corp. (1930) 210 Cal. 293, 300, 291 P. 414.)

"`The defense of laches requires unreasonable delay plus either acquiescence in the act...