Whittington v. McKinney
Decision Date | 19 September 1991 |
Docket Number | Nos. G009835,G009593,s. G009835 |
Citation | 234 Cal.App.3d 123,285 Cal.Rptr. 586 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Steve WHITTINGTON, Plaintiff, Respondent, and Cross-Appellant, v. Phyllis McKINNEY, Defendant, Appellant, and Cross-Respondent. |
Defendant Phyllis McKinney appeals a judgment in favor of plaintiff Steve Whittington following a court trial. Whittington alleged McKinney wrongfully caused a notice of default and election to sell under a deed of trust to be recorded against his property. McKinney claimed she was the assigned holder of a note and trust deed against the property which was in default.
Following trial, the court ruled as follows: (1) the note and deed of trust were deemed paid by Whittington and canceled; (2) the assignment of the note and trust deed to McKinney by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) was deemed null and void; (3) McKinney was ordered to deliver the original note and deed of trust to the court; (4) McKinney was ordered to cooperate with Whittington and the title company to effectuate the court's ruling; (5) Whittington was entitled to relief on his causes of action for a permanent injunction and for cancellation of cloud on title; he was not entitled to relief on his causes of action for slander of title, intentional infliction of emotional distress, or violation of Civil Code section 2941 requiring a mortgagee or his assignee to execute a certificate of discharge and provide a full reconveyance upon payment of the note; and (6) neither party should recover attorney's fees from the other.
McKinney appeals contending the court erred by: (1) failing to issue a written statement of decision; (2) admitting evidence on issues that had previously been adjudicated; (3) denying her motion for judgment; and (4) ordering the clerk of the court to execute a deed on her behalf. She also contends the judgment is not supported by the evidence.
Whittington cross-appeals contending the court erred by: (1) ruling that McKinney's slander of title was privileged; (2) holding that McKinney's good faith was a defense to the cause of action under Civil Code section 2941; (3) determining that section 2941 does not apply to an assignee; (4) finding notice under section 2941 was required prior to the lawsuit and that Whittington did not give McKinney notice; and (5) not awarding Whittington attorney's fees and costs.
I
McKinney contends the trial court erred by failing to issue a written statement of decision. The court stated it had a "strong bent towards making very detailed findings of fact at the conclusion of the trial in a nature of a statement of decision...." And the court recognized that, But when McKinney's counsel requested a written statement of decision, the court concluded the oral proceedings and the reporter's transcript would suffice.
In a classic understatement, the court noted its procedure is "somewhat nonstatutory." Despite recognizing that a written statement of decision was required, the court stated,
The trial judge was mistaken. We do expect one document setting forth the court's statement of decision.
Code of Civil Procedure section 632 2 provides: Accordingly, the trial court must prepare a statement of decision if one is requested. (J.T. Jenkins Co. v. Kennedy (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 474, 482, 119 Cal.Rptr. 578; 7 Witkin, Cal.Procedure (3d ed. 1985) Trial, § 397, p. 404.) And, an oral request for a statement of decision is permissible. (In re Marriage of Ananeh-Firempong (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 272, 284, 268 Cal.Rptr. 83.)
The history, purpose and importance of a statement of decision are clear. Section 632 originally required written findings of fact and conclusions of law. (See Historical Note, 16A West's Ann.Code Civ.Proc. (1976 ed.) § 632, p. 28.) Findings were considered fundamental to the decision-making process. (7 Witkin, Cal.Procedure (3d ed. 1985) Trial, § 368, p. 373.) (Frascona v. Los Angeles Ry. Corp. (1920) 48 Cal.App. 135, 137-138, 191 P. 968, emphasis added; see also R.E. Folcka Construction, Inc. v. Medallion Home Loan Co. (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 50, 53, 236 Cal.Rptr. 202.)
When a party requests a statement of decision, it must be prepared, and the failure to do so is reversible error. (See In re Marriage of Ananeh-Firempong, supra, 219 Cal.App.3d at p. 282, 268 Cal.Rptr. 83; Miramar Hotel Corp. v. Frank B. Hall & Co. (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 1126, 1129, 210 Cal.Rptr. 114.)
The trial court advised the parties that "if you would like to have a written document like that entitled statement of decision, then what you do is order a copy of the reporter's transcript, all three or four or five of those sessions, it will be entitled statement of decision, and I will just simply engross it as the statement of decision, signing it at the bottom, and then that becomes the statement of decision, essentially, for purposes of appeal, which is the principal reason for a statement of decision." We agree with appellant's counsel that it is almost impossible to work with the reporter's transcript as the statement of decision in a case of this length. Furthermore, it is neither practical nor fair to require a litigant to purchase the entire transcript in order to determine, within 60 days, whether there is a reasonable basis for appeal. 3 Unless the court complies with its obligation under section 632, the losing party will be deprived of its right to know the precise facts found by the court and the exact grounds upon which the judgment rests.
The failure to comply with the statutory requirement of a written statement of decision is equally unfair to this court. (Miramar Hotel Corp. v. Frank B. Hall & Co., supra, 163 Cal.App.3d at p. 1130, 210 Cal.Rptr. 114.)
The trial court insisted upon its "special little procedure" in contravention of section 632, while recognizing that this particular case "is excruciating from a decisionmaker's point of view." While that may be true, both for the trial court and for this court, it does not excuse the court from its obligation to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
F.P. v. Monier
...482 ; Gruendl v. Oewel Partnership, Inc. (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 654, 659–662, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 217 ; Whittington v. McKinney (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 123, 125–129, 285 Cal.Rptr. 586 ; Social Service Union v. County of Monterey (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 676, 681, 256 Cal.Rptr. 325 ; Gordon v. Wolfe (1......
-
MOLECULAR ANALYTICAL Sys. v. CIPHERGEN BIOSys. INC.
...Agri–Systems, Inc. v. Foster Poultry Farms (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1134–1135, 85 Cal.Rptr.3d 917; Whittington v. McKinney (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 123, 129, 285 Cal.Rptr. 586.) [24] [25] Nor does the consideration of equitable estoppel principles change the review standard in this case. “......
-
Western Aggregates, Inc. v. County of Yuba
...changes deemed necessary. Trial courts often direct one party to prepare a statement of decision. (See Whittington v. McKinney (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 123, 129, fn. 5, 285 Cal.Rptr. 586 ["preparation of a statement of decision should place no extra burden on the trial courts. A party may be, ......
-
Thompson v. Asimos
...it furnishes the means, in many instances, of having their cause reviewed without great expense.' " (Whittington v. McKinney (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 123, 126–127, 285 Cal.Rptr. 586, italics and citations omitted.) A proper statement of decision is thus essential to effective appellate review.......
-
Autopsy of a Trusts and Estates Case: the Appellate Doctor Is in
...Civ. Proc., section 632.40. Karlsen v. Superior Court (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1526, 1530-1531, citing Whittington v. McKinney (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 123, 126-127.41. See Section III.C, post.42. Code Civ. Proc., sections 632 and 634; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1590; Thompson v. Asimos, supra,......