Jamison v. Jamison
Filed 6/27/06 Jamison v. Jamison CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| JOHN O. JAMISON, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WILLIAM O. JAMISON, as Special Administrator, etc., Defendant and Appellant. |
F046126
(Super. Ct. No. 56299)
O P I N I O N
|
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Madera County. Thomas L. Bender, Judge.
Michael J. F. Smith for Defendant and Appellant.
Dale J. Blea for Plaintiff and Respondent.
oo0oo
Following the partition by parcel of property owned jointly by William O. Jamison, John O. Jamison, and Betty F. Jamison, trial was held to value the property for the purpose of making adjustments by owelty. (Code Civ. Proc.,[1] § 873.250.) Appellant, William O. Jamison, as special administrator of the estate of Betty F. Jamison (William), challenges the trial court's valuation on two grounds. According to William, the trial court erred in accepting the testimony of Richard Grey, the expert retained by respondent, John O. Jamison (John). William argues Grey's testimony should have been disregarded because Grey signed the appraisal after his license had lapsed and used speculative, inconsistent and incorrect methodologies in determining values. William further argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it excluded the testimony of William's expert, James Palmer, under section 2034, subdivision (j),[2] based on the finding that William did not timely produce Palmer's report.
As discussed below, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in either relying on Grey's testimony or excluding Palmer's testimony. Substantial evidence supports Grey's valuations. Further, William failed to demonstrate that his noncompliance with section 2034 was either reasonable or nonprejudicial. Accordingly, the order will be affirmed.
BACKGROUND
John filed a complaint for partition against his mother, Betty Jamison, in 1995 with respect to real property owned jointly by them. The parcels at issue are part of a cattle ranching operation that has been run by the family for decades.
The matter proceeded to trial in 1999 and an interlocutory judgment of partition was entered. The judgment appointed James Phillips as referee and directed him to submit recommendations.
Phillips hired appraiser James Palmer to value the property to be partitioned. Palmer submitted an appraisal with an effective date of May 30, 2000. This report was updated in July 2002 and August 2002.
Phillips filed his final report in September 2002. Both sides filed objections and, following trial on these objections, the trial court adopted John's partition proposal.
The trial court ordered that the issue of owelty would be heard on July 18, 2003, and August 8, 2003. The court set April 15, 2003, as the valuation date for the properties.
At a hearing held June 13, the parties designated their expert witnesses and agreed that all reports prepared by their respective experts would be made available to the other party no later than July 7, 2003. John provided an appraisal report prepared by his expert, Richard Grey, as agreed. William responded by providing John with a â€
