Loucks v. Jacobs

Filed 4/4/06 Loucks v. Jacobs 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, S. Charles Wickersham, Judge. Affirmed.

Defendant Harvey Jacobs appeals a judgment in favor of Jonathan Loucks and Jeremiah Loucks (together plaintiffs) in plaintiffs' wrongful death action against Jacobs. The appeal follows the court's denial of Jacobs's posttrial motions for a new trial and to set aside the punitive damages award and reduce the compensatory damages award. The wrongful death action was filed after Jacobs was convicted of the murder of Nadine Loucks Jacobs, Jacobs's wife and plaintiffs' mother. A jury awarded plaintiffs $2.5 million in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages.

On appeal, Jacobs contends: (1) his motion for a new trial was erroneously denied; (2) the punitive damages award should be vacated; and (3) the compensatory damages award should be reduced. We conclude reversible error does not appear on the face of the record and the order denying defendant's motion for a new trial is not an appealable order. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In January 2000, Jacobs was convicted of the murder of his wife, Nadine Loucks Jacobs. Plaintiffs sued Jacobs for the wrongful death of their mother. A jury awarded $2.5 million in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages.

After trial, Jacobs moved for a new trial and to set aside the punitive damages award and reduce the compensatory damages award. After the court denied Jacobs's motions, he filed this appeal. Jacobs designated a record for appeal, which included only the posttrial motions and responses, the corresponding minute order, the notice of appeal, and the designation of record.

DISCUSSION

I

The Motion for New Trial

Jacobs contends his motion for a new trial should have been granted because the jury was prejudiced by the sight of Jacobs in leg irons, evidence of Jacobs's conviction was not entered into evidence, and the evidence offered by plaintiffs was untrue.

"An order denying a motion for new trial is nonappealable." (Walker v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2005) 35 Cal.4th 15, 18.) The "ruling may be reviewed only through an appeal from the judgment." (Hamasaki v. Flotho (1952) 39 Cal.2d 602, 608.) A reviewing court's jurisdiction depends on the appellant filing a timely notice of appeal. (Maynard v. Brandon (2005) 36 Cal.4th 364, 379-80.) Jacobs appealed the judgment only with respect to damages and not any other aspect of the judgment. Because timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional and Jacobs has appealed only the damages awards, we do not have jurisdiction to review any other aspect of the judgment. Therefore, Jacobs's appeal of the order denying his motion for a new trial is dismissed. In any event, Jacobs has not supplied an appellate record that permits us to evaluate the trial court's denial of his motion for new trial.

II

The Punitive Damages Award

Jacobs contends the punitive damages award is improper because he has already been punished through his criminal conviction and is unable to pay any damages. Because there is no error on the face of the record, we affirm the court's judgment denying Jacobs's motion to set aside the punitive damages award.

An award of punitive damages will be affirmed on review if it is supported by substantial evidence. (Shade Foods, Inc. v. Innovative Products Sales & Marketing, Inc. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 847, 891.) A jury may award punitive damages if it finds clear and convincing evidence of oppression, fraud, or malice. (Ibid.) Therefore, a reviewing court "must inquire whether the record contains 'substantial evidence to support a determination by clear and convincing evidence . . . .' " (Ibid.)

Here, the record on appeal does not include a transcript of the evidence presented to the jury or any documentation of the court's findings of fact. An appellant has a duty "to provide an adequate record to assess error." (Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295.) When the record on appeal consists only of a clerk's transcript, the presumption is that there is substantial evidence to support the court's findings. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 52; Codekas v. Dyna-Lift Co. (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 20, 23, fn. 1, 24.) If a record does not aid a meaningful review, "the appellant defaults and the decision of the trial court should be affirmed." (Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish & Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043, 1051, fn. 9.) Because the record provided by Jacobs does not include any of the evidence submitted at trial, we must assume there was substantial evidence to support the jury's award of punitive damages and conclude the court's denial of Jacobs's motion to set aside the punitive damages award was proper.

III

The Compensatory Damages Award

Jacobs contends the award of $2.5 million in compensatory damages is excessive because the plaintiffs did not meet their burden of proof and the jury did not properly consider evidence of Jacobs's inability to pay damages. On appeal, a reviewing court must affirm an award of damages if there is substantial evidence to support the judgment. (Fortman v. Hemco, Inc. (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 241, 259.) "[D]amages are excessive only where the recovery is so grossly disproportionate to the injury that the award may be presumed to have been the result of passion or prejudice." (Ibid.)

Here, no error appears on the face of the record. Because the record does not include the evidence submitted to the jury, we must assume the trial court's actions were proper and there was substantial evidence to support the amount awarded for compensatory damages. (Codekas v. Dyna-Lift Co., supra, 48 Cal.App.3d at p. 23, fn. 1.) Therefore, we conclude the court's denial of Jacobs's motion to reduce the compensatory damage award was proper.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

McDONALD, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

AARON, J.

Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.

Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Apartment Manager Attorneys.