Martinez v. Jaurez

Filed 10/23/08 Martinez v. Jaurez CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Conrad Aragon, Judge. Affirmed.

Law Offices of Lawrence G. Larson and Lawrence G. Larson for Defendant and Appellant.

Kaye Law Offices and Barry P. Kaye for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant and appellant Catalina Juarez appeals from the judgment rendered in favor of plaintiff and respondent Jose Martinez following a bench trial. Juarez contends the judgment is vague and ambiguous and does not address certain issues. She asserts that the matter must be remanded for the trial court to clarify its ruling. We conclude Juarez has forfeited any claim of error and affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Neither party sets forth a summary of the facts with citations to the record, making it difficult to piece together the proceedings in the trial court. We have relied heavily on the minute order setting forth the trial courts findings.

Juarez is Martinezs mother. The dispute concerned two pieces of property, a restaurant and a residence. Juarez and Martinez agreed to be co-owners of the restaurant, however, title was placed in Juarezs name because she was a legal resident and Martinez was not. With proceeds from the restaurant, they purchased the home in question. They advised their broker that they were to be co-owners of the house, but as with the restaurant, title was placed in Juarezs name. Later, Juarez executed a grant deed transferring title to the house to her and Martinez as joint tenants. Martinez transferred title back to Juarez, in an effort to keep his prospective spouse from gaining an interest. From the date of purchase to the filing of the lawsuit, the parties resided in the home.

In June 2005, Juarez changed the locks on the restaurant, denying Martinez access. In August, she filed an unlawful detainer action seeking to evict Martinez. Shortly thereafter, Martinez filed a complaint, seeking, inter alia, the imposition of a constructive trust and to quiet title against Juarezs claim that she, alone, owned the restaurant and the home.

On May 16, 2007, the trial court dismissed all but three causes of action in Martinezs complaint. On May 21, the remaining causes (constructive trust, quiet title, and declaratory relief) were tried to the court.

After a two-day trial, the court concluded that Juarez held title to the restaurant and the house as a constructive trustee for the benefit of Martinez. It ruled that title to the house shall be quieted in the name of Martinez and Juarez as joint tenants as of the date of the acquisition of the property. Title in the restaurant is also quieted in favor of both Martinez and Juarez as co-owners as of the date the business commenced, and, accordingly, all assets and liabilities of the restaurant, and the house, are jointly owned and the responsibility of Martinez and Juarez from the commencement of the restaurant, and from the acquisition of the house, to the present. Juarezs unlawful detainer action was dismissed as moot.

Neither party asked for a statement of decision. The court ordered Martinez to prepare a proposed judgment. There is no evidence that Juarez filed an objection. On June 20, 2007, the court signed the proposed judgment.

DISCUSSION

Juarez informs us that the restaurant is an ongoing business. She contends the ruling leaves the parties in a quandary as to distribution of responsibilities for administrative management, staffing, distribution of profits or losses and existing liabilities. With regard to the house, she asserts the judgment invites further dispute in that one-half title does not give sufficient definition to the contributions of the parties.

We cite the familiar rule that the appellant has the burden of affirmatively demonstrating error. (Cryoport Systems v. CNA Ins. Cos. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 627, 633.) A judgment or order of a lower court is presumed to be correct on appeal, and all intendments and presumptions are indulged in favor of its correctness. [Citations.] (In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133.)

Although Juarez complains that the trial courts judgment is silent on the issues remaining and that the parties are left adrift to now determine an equitable application of the Judgment, she does not claim that she asked the court to consider the issues she now raises. Moreover, as we have pointed out, there is no evidence Juarez objected to the proposed judgment for failing to address all of the issues raised at trial. Juarez had an obligation to bring the alleged deficiencies in the judgment to the attention of the trial court. Ordinarily, a reviewing court will not entertain claims on appeal where the asserted error was not brought to the attention of the trial court. (Boyle v. CertainTeed Corp. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 645, 649.)

There is a second reason to conclude that Juarez has forfeited her right to appeal. She also failed to request a statement of decision seeking findings on the alleged issues remaining. Her failure to do so constitutes a forfeiture of her right to raise the issues on appeal. (See City of Coachella v. Riverside County Airport Land Use Com. (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 1277, 1288 [party who requested a statement of decision forfeited its right to object to issues where findings were not requested].)

Even if Juarez had preserved her right to appeal, she has presented no reasoned argument explaining why the judgment is deficient. She merely asserts that issues relating to income distribution remain. As we have discussed, the judgment declared that each party jointly shared all assets and liabilities of the restaurant and the home. Juarez does not explain why a 50-50 split of the properties has created the accounting nightmare that she contends exists. Simply hinting at an argument and leaving it to the appellate court to develop it is not adequate. (Cryoport Systems v. CNA Ins. Cos., supra, 149 Cal.App.4th at p. 633.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Martinez is awarded his costs on appeal.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

SUZUKAWA, J.

We concur:

EPSTEIN, P. J. MANELLA, J.

Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com