Chandler v. Wilburn
Filed 6/21/06 Chandler v. Wilburn CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
| ROBERT C. CHANDLER, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DARRELL WILBURN et al., Defendants and Appellants. | D047648 (Super. Ct. No. SCV121134) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, W. Robert Fawke, Judge. Affirmed.
This case involves a dispute over legal fees. Defendants and appellants Darrell Wilburn and Evelyn Wilburn engaged plaintiff and respondent Attorney Robert C. Chandler to represent them in a matter against the City of Highland. A demurrer was sustained in favor of the city. Chandler represented the Wilburns on appeal. Division Two of this court affirmed the trial court's judgment.
A dispute then arose concerning Chandler's fee. A non-binding arbitration hearing was held by the fee arbitration panel of the San Bernardino County Bar Association apparently pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 6200 et seq. The panel awarded the Wilburns a refund of $21,784.92, approximately one-half the fee paid to Chandler.
In response Chandler filed a complaint styled "Complaint for Declaratory Relief (After Fee Arbitration)." Chandler alleged the decision of the fee panel was arbitrary. Chandler sought a declaration that the fees charged were reasonable and earned in light of the work performed.
At trial the Wilburns represented themselves. The trial court found for Chandler and issued a statement of decision. The court reviewed the history of the underlying action and the history of the various fee agreements between Chandler and the Wilburns. The court found the fees were earned but "somewhat excessive" and ordered a refund of $3,270.
On this appeal the Wilburns continue to represent themselves. They fault Chandler on various scores for his representation of them in their action against the City of Highland and the appeal of that matter. At its core, their complaint is that Chandler's representation was worthless and they believe he should refund the money paid him. More specifically, the Wilburns appear to fault the trial court in Chandler's declaratory relief action for not allowing them to discuss the results of the fee arbitration hearing and perhaps, it is not entirely clear, also for not allowing them to present other unspecified evidence. They also fault the trial court for not having a court reporter present during the trial of the declaratory relief action.
The only record before this court is the Wilburns' appendix containing the written "Non-Binding Arbitration Award," Chandler's complaint for declaratory relief, the trial court's statement of decision and the judgment in favor of Chandler.
Insofar as the Wilburns may be arguing the evidence is insufficient to support the trial court's findings, the record they offer does not support the claim.
There is no record supporting the contention the trial court excluded evidence concerning the arbitration award. In any event such exclusion is proper. Business and Professions Code section 6200 et seq. provides, in the context of this case, for a system of non-binding arbitration of disputes concerning attorney fees. After an award in arbitration either party may seek a trial by commencing an action in court. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6204, subds. (a), (c).) Business and Professions Code section 6204, subdivision (e), states: "Except as provided in this section, the award and determinations of the arbitrators shall not be admissible nor operate as collateral estoppel or res judicata in any action or proceeding."[1]
There is no merit to the Wilburns' claim that the trial court erred in not providing a court reporter. In a civil case a trial court may, but is not required to, order a reporter to take down testimony, etc. (Code Civ. Proc., § 269, subd. (a).) A party may request the matter be reported. (Code Civ. Proc., § 269, subd. (a).) There is no record of such a request here.
The judgment is affirmed.
BENKE, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
IRION, J.
Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.
Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Apartment Manager Lawyers.
[1] The section allows the trial court to consider findings made by the arbitrators on the subject of a party's failure to appear at the arbitration hearing, a factor that affects the party's' rights at a trial. (Bus. and Prof. Code, § 6204, subd. (a).) Section 6204, subdivision (d), allows the trial court to award attorney fees to the prevailing party at trial and allow the court to consider the award and determination of the arbitrators.
