Young v. Superior Court
Decision Date | 25 March 1986 |
Citation | 224 Cal.Rptr. 405,179 Cal.App.3d 28 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Robert E. YOUNG, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California, In and For the County of Marin, Respondent, Anton WENZOSKI, et al., Real Parties in Interest. AO32529. |
Paul A. Renne, Cooley, Godward, Castro, Huddleston & Tatum, San Francisco, for petitioner Robert E. Young.
Thomas H. Carver, Los Angeles, for real party in interest Anton Wenzoski.
This petition challenges the denial of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication of issues as to the ninth and tenth causes of action of the complaint filed by real parties in interest. Petitioner's motion contended that the ninth cause of action for fraudulent conveyance was barred by the three-year statute of limitations for fraud and that there was no evidence to create a triable dispute as to the tenth cause of action for a creditor's bill. Without reaching the merits of the superior court's ruling, we vacate the order for failure to comply with section 437c, subdivisions (f) and (g) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1
Subdivision (f) provides that upon a motion for summary adjudication of issues, either by itself or as an alternative to summary judgment, "the court shall, by written or oral order, specify those issues raised by the motion as to which there exists a material, triable controversy, and refer to the evidence which establishes a triable issue of fact regarding each of those issues." (Italics added.) Subdivision (g), which bears most directly on the instant ruling, states in material part as follows: (Italics added.)
Respondent court's order does not satisfy the requirements of the statute. In denying the motion, the trial court held that there existed a triable material controversy as to whether there was a conspiracy to conceal the proceeds of the fraud assertedly committed by one Robert Pollock; whether others (Guiterrez and Young) were members of such a conspiracy; and the date the alleged conspiracy began and ended. The trial court stated that the evidence establishing a triable issue of fact as to these issues was as follows: Nowhere in the order is any item of evidence specifically referred to in such a way as to show that a triable controversy exists. Nowhere in the order is a conflict in the evidence identified by reference to the evidence in support of a particular asserted fact and the evidence in opposition to that fact.
Subdivisions (f) and (g) of section 437c, which were the result of a 1983 amendment to that statute 2, require far greater specificity in the denial of motions for summary judgment and summary adjudication of issues than was formerly required. For this reason, the amended statute has not been enthusiastically received by many already overburdened trial judges. Indeed, even appellate judges have questioned the wisdom of the new requirements in the course of enforcing them. (Tera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Superior Court (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 530, 532, 215 Cal.Rptr. 923.) Thus it is not entirely surprising that, after expressing his frustration, the trial judge in this case characterized the amended statute as "a disaster" and observed, unhappily, that "it's easier nowadays to grant a summary judgment motion than it is to deny it."
While we are also sympathetic to the plight of a busy trial judge confronted with the exacting requirements of section 437c, so too are we mindful of the value of the new statute. (Continental Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 1069, 1072, 212 Cal.Rptr. 140.)
The burdens imposed upon the trial court by subdivisions (f) and (g) of section 437c will be eased considerably if the court insists as it should, on strict compliance with subdivision (b) of that statute. Subdivision (b) provides that the papers supporting a motion under section 437c Subdivision (b) further provides that any opposition to the motion also (See also, Cal.Rules of Court, rules 343, 345.)
Trial courts possess the ability to enforce abidance to the "separate statement" requirements just set forth, as the failure of a party to comply may, in the court's discretion, constitute a sufficient ground for denying or granting a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication of issues. 3 (Section 437c, subd. (b).)
Moreover, just as after the non-jury trial of a question of fact a trial court may direct that its proposed statement of decision or proposed judgment be prepared by a designated party (Cal.Rules of Court, rule 232(c), (e)), so too may the court direct counsel for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
North Coast Business Park v. Nielsen Construction Co.
...which indicates the existence or nonexistence of a triable issue of fact. (§ 437c(g).) As recognized in Young v. Superior Court (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 28, 224 Cal.Rptr. 405, "[t]he burdens imposed upon the trial court ... will be eased considerably if the court insists, as it should, on stri......
-
Globe Indemnity Co. v. Superior Court
...that a writ be issued. (Gonzales v. Superior Court (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1542, 1546, 235 Cal.Rptr. 106; Young v. Superior Court (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 28, 32-33, 224 Cal.Rptr. 405.) Because we have decided the issues as a matter of law, remanding this matter for compliance with section 437c ......
-
Pac. Mercantile Bank v. Chabad of Cal., E055670
...243 [court that authored Biljac decides a case in which 764 specific evidentiary objections were made].) Chabad cites Young v. Superior Court (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 28. In that case, the appellate court discussed the 1983 amendments to section 437c and issued a writ of mandate ordering the t......
-
Carnes v. Superior Court
...of an attorney order specifying the disputed issues and citing the relevant evidence." (Ibid.; see also Young v. Superior Court (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 28, 32, 224 Cal.Rptr. 405.) Although we agree that Tera Pharmaceuticals approves (appropriately) of shifting to counsel the burden of prepari......