1

Filed 12/22/23 Sutherland v. Arent CA1/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or 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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

CANDYCE K. SUTHERLAND, as 

TRUSTEE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

BRIEN J. ARENT et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

 A166632

 (Lake County

 Super. Ct. Nos. PR502326 & 

CV418910)

After this court affirmed a judgment against appellants Brien Arent 

and Eva Keiser (Sutherland v. Arent (Mar. 24, 2022, A160404) [nonpub. opn.] 

(Sutherland I)), respondent Candyce Sutherland sought to recover her 

appellate costs. The trial court rejected appellants’ argument that the costs 

should be denied since the underlying judgment against them was “void.” In 

this memorandum opinion, we affirm.1

Sutherland and Arent are siblings, and Keiser is Arent’s longtime 

partner. After Arent and Sutherland’s father died in February 2017, 

yearslong litigation about their father’s estate followed. The trial court 

1 A memorandum opinion disposes of cases that raise “no substantial 

issues of law or fact,” including appeals that raise “factual issues that are 

determined by the substantial evidence rule.” (California Standards of 

Judicial Administration, section 8.1.)
2

appointed Sutherland trustee over the trust that contained the property of 

Sutherland, Arent, and their other two siblings’ late parents. Sutherland 

thereafter initiated unlawful detainer proceedings against both Arent and 

Keiser to remove them from their home, which was trust property. Following 

a brief trial, the trial court denied Sutherland relief after appellants produced 

a lease agreement that purported to permit them full access to the property. 

Sutherland filed a civil suit against both appellants to cancel the lease and 

for other relief. She also filed a petition for instructions in the probate action. 

The two cases were consolidated for trial. 

Arent and Keiser have been unrepresented throughout most of these 

proceedings. Keiser testified at the bench trial on Sutherland’s claims.

2 She 

also took an active role in the trial, as she made arguments to the court and 

also questioned witnesses. At one point Sutherland’s trial attorney objected

to Keiser raising an issue relevant to the probate proceeding since Keiser was 

not a beneficiary of the trust and thus not a party. Keiser argued that since 

the trust held property where she had been living for decades she “ha[d] a 

right to speak about being evicted and being put out on the street, and that 

whether it’s the successor trustee who’s doing it or a regular landlord who is 

doing it that is not a trustee, I still have a right to address those issues.” The 

trial court allowed Keiser to question the witness at issue. Following trial, 

the trial court concluded that the lease agreement appellants had presented 

was a forgery and that both appellants had misappropriated property 

belonging to the trust, and it granted Sutherland the discretion to sell trust 

property. 

2 On its own motion, the court augments the record to include the 

reporter’s transcript from Sutherland I.
3

After entry of judgment, Sutherland filed a memorandum of costs in 

the trial court. At the hearing on appellants’ motion to tax costs,3 Keiser 

argued that she was being asked to pay costs for an action where she was not 

a party. The trial court observed that “[w]hen I first started hearing this 

case, I was a little confused, Ms. Keiser, as to why you were making all the 

commentary, and you insisted that you were a party to all of these things and 

therefore you weren’t practicing law without a license. You were a party, a 

defendant, et cetera. [¶] To make the argument now that somehow that’s not 

the case is difficult for this Court to see as anything but disingenuous. I was 

always confused as to why you were always in the cases, you’re listed in the 

cases . . . , and the general statement was that this affected you and you were 

a party. [¶] I have accepted that going forward, but to now make the 

argument that somehow you are not a party this, well, makes everything that 

you did look like you were trying to practice law without a license. [¶] So I’m 

going to say that that argument is not going to be considered by the Court 

because it’s just simply—it’s just simply inconsistent with what has been 

stated by you and/or Mr. Arent through the entire case.” 

In Sutherland I, this court affirmed the judgment against appellants. 

The disposition stated, “Sutherland shall recover her costs on appeal.” This 

was a reference to California Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(1) (rule 8.278), 

which provides that a prevailing party in a civil case is entitled to costs on 

appeal. Appellants petitioned for review in the Supreme Court, but the 

petition was denied on June 22, 2022 (S274358). This court issued the 

remittitur on June 28. 

3 On its own motion, the court augments the record to include the 

reporter’s transcript from Sutherland v. Arent (June 14, 2022, A161411) 

[nonpub. opn.] (Sutherland II), which affirmed the costs award.
4

Within 40 days after the issuance of the remittitur (rule 8.278(c)(1)), 

Sutherland filed a memorandum of costs on appeal. She sought filing fees 

and record-preparation and copying costs, for a total of $3,950. Appellants 

filed a “Motion to Strike Costs on Appeal in its Entirety as Founded Upon a 

Void Judgment.” For the first time, they claimed that the “void judgment” 

against them was “replete with jurisdictional defects [that] affected the[ir] 

procedural due process rights.” Apparently they contended that since Keiser 

was not a beneficiary of the trust at issue and was not a party to the probate 

proceeding, the single judgment entered in the consolidated action was void. 

Appellants’ motion did not include any objection to the amounts set forth in 

Sutherland’s memorandum of costs. 

At the hearing on the motion, Keiser acknowledged that she was a 

party to the civil action but argued that the civil and probate actions required 

two separate judgments, and that the single judgment entered was thus void. 

The trial court denied the motion to strike costs on appeal, stating that “[i]t’s 

simply not the right motion for what’s trying to be accomplished, especially 

since there is something about the judgment and it’s been on appeal already 

[and] . . . the motion itself just doesn’t make any sense.” Keiser and Arent 

appealed. 

Nowhere in appellants’ opening brief do they argue that the amount 

Sutherland was awarded for her appellate costs was excessive. Instead, they 

contend that the judgment entered against them in Sutherland I was “void” 

since it was “replete with jurisdictional defects.” In a section of their brief 

that includes no citations to the record, appellants suggest that Keiser lacked 

proper notice of the proceedings below, when the overwhelming evidence from 

Sutherland I and Sutherland II is to the contrary. In another section of the 
5

opening brief that likewise lacks record citations, appellants appear to attack 

the judgment that this court already upheld in Sutherland I. 

Appellants’ reliance on Moore v. Kaufman (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 604

is entirely misplaced. There, the court concluded that a judgment was void 

as to an attorney, but not her client, since the anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit 

against public participation) statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16) does not 

authorize an award of attorney fees against a nonparty attorney. (Moore at 

pp. 607, 615.) Here, there is nothing whatsoever to suggest the Sutherland I

judgment is void.

The order denying the motion to strike costs on appeal is affirmed. 

Sutherland shall recover her costs on appeal. (Rule 8.278(a)(1).) 
6

_________________________

Humes, P.J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________

Banke, J.

_________________________

Getty, J.*

*Judge of the Superior Court of the County of Solano, assigned by the 

Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

Sutherland v. Arent A166632