Sanker v. Brown

• Decision Date: 08 May 1985
• Citation: 213 Cal.Rptr. 768,167 Cal.App.3d 1144
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Patricia SANKER, aka Patricia Brown, an individual, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Larry BROWN, an individual, et al., Defendant and Appellant. B001301.

Page 768

213 Cal.Rptr. 768

167 Cal.App.3d 1144

Patricia SANKER, aka Patricia Brown, an individual, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Larry BROWN, an individual, et al., Defendant and Appellant.

B001301.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7, California.

May 8, 1985.

[167 Cal.App.3d 1145] Michael Worthington, Los Angeles, for defendant and appellant.

Berkovitz, Schilit & Ziskin and David A. Berkovitz, Encino, for plaintiff and respondent.

JOHNSON, Associate Justice.

Defendant Brown appeals from an order denying his motion to vacate the arbitration award in favor of plaintiff Sanker. We reverse and remand with directions.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW

Larry Brown and Patricia Sanker purchased a residence in joint tenancy. They were never married but they lived together as man and wife for a short time and made the residence their home. After they separated, Sanker filed suit seeking a partition sale of the residence. Brown cross-complained for a declaration of a resulting trust in the property.

Notice of arbitration conference was sent to plaintiff pursuant to sections 1141.10 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure and rules 1600 et seq. of the California Rules of Court. ¹ The parties, through their respective counsel, responded to this notice by filing a Stipulation Re Arbitration in which they stipulated the case would be arbitrated in accordance with rules 1600 et seq. The stipulation also contained a provision in which the parties waived their right to a trial de novo. (See § 1141.20 and rule 1616.)

An arbitration hearing was held resulting in an award of judgment in favor of Sanker directing Brown to sell the property and share the net proceeds equally with her.

Within the applicable time limit, Brown filed a request for trial de novo. The trial court rejected the request on the basis of the stipulation which purported to waive both parties' right to a trial. Brown then moved to set aside the arbitration award on the ground he had never agreed to waive his right to a trial de novo and his attorney's stipulation waiving his right to trial was the result of mistake or inadvertence. Declarations filed by Brown and his attorney supported Brown's contentions. Brown testified, "... I never understood this to be a binding arbitration" and "I was told ... that the arbitration opinion would be advisory only and that no partition sale could result from the arbitrator's award." Brown's former attorney testified, "I did not intend for the arbitration to be binding. My objective, as discussed with [plaintiff's attorney] was to obtain an advisory ruling

                from an impartial third party....  The Stipulation submitting the matter to arbitration was prepared by [plaintiff's attorney].  I did not notice at the time the matter was submitted that it was a binding arbitration.  This was a mistake on my part which was purely inadvertent."   There is no credible evidence countering these declarations.  Brown alleged other irregularities in the arbitration procedure but because of our decision on his first point we deem it unnecessary to reach the others
                

DISCUSSION

While this appeal was pending our Supreme Court handed down its decision in Blanton v. Womancare, Inc. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 396, 212 Cal.Rptr. 151, 696 P.2d 645 holding "an attorney, merely by virtue of his employment as such, has no apparent authority to bind his client to an agreement for arbitration." (Id., at p. 407, 212 Cal.Rptr. 151, 696 P.2d 645.) Blanton requires reversal of the judgment in the case at bench.

In Blanton, as in this case, the client did not agree to binding arbitration, (id., at pp. 399, fn. 1, 402, 403, 212 Cal.Rptr. 151, 696 P.2d 645) and, as in this case, repudiated the stipulation upon learning of it. (Id., at p. 402, 212 Cal.Rptr. 151, 696 P.2d 645.) In both cases, counsel for the moving parties appear to have been unaware they had agreed to binding arbitration. (Id., at p. 400, fn. 1 cont'd., 212 Cal.Rptr. 151, 696 P.2d 645.)

We recognize allowing a party to object to an allegedly unauthorized stipulation to binding arbitration after an adverse decision has been reached raises the possibility of manipulation--of withholding an objection unless and until an unfavorable decision is announced. Blanton 's answer to this concern is not to deny the "sacred and inviolable ... right to a trial." (Wuest v. Wuest (1942) 53 Cal.App.2d 339, 345...