Court Opinion

ID: 9902109
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-23 00:01:43.178381+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:45.601542
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/22/23
                          CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

            IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                             FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                    DIVISION THREE

    Z.V.,
            Appellant,
                                                  A166178
    v.
    CHERYL W.,                                    (Alameda County Super. Ct.
                                                  No. RF08424606)
            Respondent.

            At the conclusion of a long cause hearing, the trial court issued an oral
statement of decision granting grandparent visitation under Family Code
section 3102 and rejecting the mother’s challenges to existing visitation
orders. The mother filed a notice of appeal on a date that was beyond the 60-
day deadline for filing such notices. (See Cal. Rules of Court,
rule 8.104(a)(1)(B).1) Though the time for filing a notice of appeal may be
extended to 90 days after the first notice of intention to move to vacate the
order is filed (rule 8.108(c)(2)), this does not assist the mother because she
failed to file her notice of appeal during that time frame. Accordingly, we
dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
                       FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
            J.W. (Minor) was born to Z.V. (Mother) and Jeremy W. (Father) in
2008. Father passed away in December 2015. Soon thereafter, the mother of
Father, Cheryl W. (Grandmother), filed requests to be joined to the family

1           All further rule references are to the California Rules of Court.

                                             1
law matter and sought custody of Minor. Though Grandmother helped raise
Minor since birth and alleged she was her primary custodian, Mother had
been denying Grandmother’s contact with her since Father’s untimely death.
The trial court awarded temporary sole legal and physical custody to Mother,
granted Grandmother’s joinder motion, and granted visitation to
Grandmother.
      In the years that followed, Mother and Grandmother regularly engaged
in litigation over Grandmother’s visitation. In 2018, the parties reached a
settlement concerning visitation. Despite the settlement, conflict and
litigation concerning Grandmother’s visits continued. In February 2021,
Mother filed a request to vacate the court’s visitation order, indicating she
had moved to Southern California. Grandmother filed a request for
temporary emergency orders seeking to enforce visitation. The court set a
long cause hearing.
      At Mother’s request, the trial court provided an oral statement of
decision at the conclusion of the long cause hearing on April 5, 2022. Based
on its findings, the court denied Mother’s request to vacate all visitation
orders and modified the existing order to allow one visit every other month,
plus two weeks of nonconsecutive summertime visits. On June 15, 2022, the
trial court filed a document entitled Findings and Orders After the Hearing
(FOAH), which reduced its earlier oral statement of decision to writing.
Grandmother served Mother with a notice of entry of order on June 23, 2022.
      On May 12, 2022, Mother filed a notice of motion and motion to vacate
the order and substitute a new judgment, or for a new trial, pursuant to Code
Civil Procedure sections 657 and 663 (hereafter motion to vacate). She filed
amended notices of motion and motions to vacate on May 27, 2022, and June

                                       2
27, 2022. The trial court issued a written denial that was filed on September
9, 2022, and served on the parties on September 6, 2022.
      On September 21, 2022, Mother filed her notice of appeal, which
indicated the appeal was taken from judgment entered on June 15, 2022
following a court trial.
                                  DISCUSSION
      As a threshold matter, we address whether Mother timely filed a notice
of appeal. For the reasons below, we conclude she did not. (Barry v. State
Bar of California (2017) 2 Cal.5th 318, 326 [“ ‘[a] court has jurisdiction to
determine its own jurisdiction’ ”].)
      The record establishes that, at Mother’s request, the trial court issued
an oral statement of decision at the end of the long cause hearing on April 5,
2022. The trial court memorialized its statement of decision in its written
FOAH filed on June 15, 2022, and Grandmother served Mother with a notice
of entry of order on June 23, 2022. Mother, however, filed her notice of
appeal on September 21, 2022, a date which was beyond the 60-day deadline
in the California Rules of Court for filing such notices. (Rule 8.104(a)(1)(B).)
      Given these circumstances, the question is whether rule 8.108 extends
the 60-day deadline for filing the notice of appeal. Under that rule, the
normal time for filing a notice of appeal is extended when a party “serves and
files a valid notice of intention to move—or a valid motion—to vacate the
judgment.” (Rule 8.108(c).) In that scenario, the time to file a notice of
appeal is extended to the earliest of: “(1) 30 days after the superior court
clerk, or a party serves an order denying the motion or a notice of entry of
that order; (2) 90 days after the first notice of intention to move—or motion—
is filed; or (3) 180 days after entry of judgment.” (Rule 8.108(c)(1)–(3).)

                                        3
      Here, Mother filed notices of motions to vacate orders on May 12, 2022,
May 27, 2022, and June 27, 2022.2 Ninety days after May 12, May 27, and
June 27, is August 10, August 25, and September 25, respectively. Critically,
the rule extends the time to appeal to “90 days after the first notice of
intention to move—or motion—is filed.” (Rule 8.108(c)(2), italics added.)
Consequently, if either of the May notices is a valid “first” notice of motion,
then Mother’s notice of appeal is untimely because the appeal was filed more
than 90 days after such notices.
      Addressing this, Mother posits that the 90-day extension under
rule 8.108(c)(2) should be calculated from the June 27 notice of motion.
Relying on Ehrler v. Ehrler (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 147, 150 (Ehrler), she
argues the May 12 notice of motion was premature and therefore void
because it was filed before entry of judgment. Mother, however, does not
acknowledge her May 27 notice of motion. Though Grandmother seeks
dismissal of the appeal as untimely, her respondent’s brief inexplicably also
argues the May 12 and May 27 notices were premature under Ehrler.3 We
are unpersuaded that the May 12 and 27 notices were premature and void.
      Code of Civil Procedure section 659, subdivision (a)(1), provides that a
party intending to move for a new trial must file a notice of intention to move
for a new trial either: “(1) After the decision is rendered and before the entry

2      All further dates in this part of the discussion without a stated year
refer to 2022.
3      We requested supplemental briefing regarding the effect of the April 5,
2022 statement of decision in determining whether the notice of appeal in
this case was timely. In her supplemental brief, Grandmother no longer
takes the position that the May 12 and May 27 notices were premature,
suggesting instead that the notices were timely because the trial court
provided an oral statement of decision in compliance with Code of Civil
Procedure section 632 on April 5, 2022.

                                        4
of judgment. [¶] (2) Within 15 days of the date of mailing notice of entry of
judgment by the clerk of the court . . . , or service upon him or her by any
party of written notice of entry of judgment, or within 180 days after the
entry of judgment, whichever is earliest . . . .” (Italics added.) The same time
limits govern a motion to vacate. (Code Civ. Proc., § 663a, subd. (a).)
      At the time Ehrler was decided, the first enumerated deadline for
moving for a new trial under Code of Civil Procedure section 659 was
“ ‘[b]efore the entry of judgment,’ ” and the deadline made no reference to the
rendering of a decision. (Ehrler, supra, 126 Cal.App.3d at p. 152.)
Examining this language, Ehrler indicated that while “[s]ection 659 allows a
notice of motion to be filed prior to the entry of the judgment,” a notice filed
before a court actually renders a decision such that a party is aggrieved is
premature and void. (Ehrler, at p. 152.) Ehrler went on to say: “In a court
trial, rendition of judgment occurs when the court signs and files the
findings, conclusions and the judgment.” (Ibid.) In other words, Ehrler
indicated that a “decision” is rendered in a court trial when judgment is
rendered. (See 8 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Attack, § 55, p. 641,
citing Ehrler.)
      But Ehrler did not address a situation, such as in this case, where a
party to a court trial requests and obtains a statement of decision. As
relevant here, case law indicates “a decision is rendered when the court files
its statement of decision or, if none was requested, when judgment is
entered.” (Ochoa v. Dorado (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 120, 133, italics added; cf.
In re Marriage of Hafferkamp (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 789, 793 [“a ‘decision’ . . .
means the rendition of judgment which, in a court trial where a statement of
decision is waived, means the ‘signing and filing of judgment’ ”], italics
added.)

                                        5
         As relevant here, Code of Civil Procedure section 632 provides: “The
statement of decision shall be in writing, unless the parties appearing at trial
agree otherwise; however, when the trial is concluded within one calendar
day or in less than 8 hours over more than one day, the statement of decision
may be made orally on the record in the presence of the parties.” (Italics
added.) Here, the record establishes that Mother asked for a statement of
decision, and the court obliged with an oral statement of decision at the end
of the hearing on April 5. The minute orders of the long cause hearing
establish that less than eight hours had elapsed at the point that the court
issued its oral decision, and Mother’s briefing in the trial court concedes the
point.
         Notably, there was no objection to the oral statement of decision below.
Instead, in a brief filed by Mother below, she indicated the trial court
“announced it would issue an oral [statement of decision], and [Mother]
agreed, waiving a written [statement of decision].” (Code Civ. Proc., § 632
[“The statement of decision shall be in writing, unless the parties appearing
at trial agree otherwise”]; Whittington v. McKinney (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d
123, 129–130 [right to a written statement waived].) Additionally, Mother’s
May 12 notice of motion to vacate included a memorandum of points and
authorities detailing many of the findings in the court’s oral statement of
decision: “The findings, as stated in the [Statement of Decision], include:
[¶] 1. [Mother] is a fit parent, as no one has argued otherwise and no evidence
was submitted to the contrary. [¶] 2. [Mother] has interfered with visits,
particularly the summertime visits. . . . [¶] 3. The reasons for interfering
with visits were: [¶] a. [Minor] getting a phone at the grandmother’s
house, . . . [¶] b. and the grandmother was giving the child too many gifts or
expensive gives [sic] . . . . [¶] 4. Those reasons do not justify the ‘prevention’

                                         6
of summer visits, which was not reasonable and is not in the best interest of
the child. [¶] 5. [Minor] has an important relationship with her grandmother.
[¶] 6. [Mother] believes it is an important relationship[.] [¶] 7. The Court is
not convinced that the relationship would not be put in jeopardy, given the
conduct of [Mother] in the past, if there were no orders put in place for
visitation with[] the grandmother.” Mother went on to argue that these
findings were unsupported by the evidence and that the court’s decision was
inconsistent with the law.
      Thereafter, on June 15, the court filed the FOAH which reduced its oral
statement of decision to writing. The FOAH was signed by counsel for
Mother and Grandmother on a line that said “Approved as conforming to
court order.” Because neither of Mother’s May 2022 notices of motion was
premature or otherwise invalid, and because Mother filed her notice of appeal
more than 90 days after filing these notices of motion, her appeal remains
untimely. (Rule 8.108(c)(1)–(3).)
      Additionally, we observe that a notice of intention to vacate must be
filed and served in order for the extensions in rule 8.108(b) and (c) to apply.
(Rule 8.108(b), (c); see rule 8.108(h) [“[a]n order or notice that is served must
be accompanied by proof of service”]; Advisory Com. com., foll. rule 8.108
[“The date of the proof of service establishes the date when an extension of
the time to appeal begins to run after service of such an order or notice.”];
Palmer v. GTE California, Inc. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1265, 1279, fn. 6.) Here, the
register of actions in the record indicates that a proof of service for the first
amended notice filed on May 27 was filed on May 31. Even if we adjust the
extended notice of appeal period based on the date of this proof of service,
Mother’s notice of appeal was filed more than 90 days after May 31.

                                         7
      Finally, Mother’s supplemental brief contends that the trial court’s
September 9 written decision denying her motion to vacate “superseded the
oral Statement of Decision provided in April” and that therefore she filed a
timely appeal of that final Statement of Decision on September 21. (Boldface
and italics omitted.) Because Mother provides no reasoned argument or legal
authority to support her view that the decision denying her motion to vacate
superseded the oral Statement of Decision, we deem this contention waived.
(See Badie v. Bank of America (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 779, 784–785.)
      In any case, Mother’s claim that she appealed from the court’s
September 9 decision denying her motion to vacate is belied by her notice of
appeal, which specifically indicates this appeal is taken from the June 15,
2022 judgment after court trial. Nowhere does the notice of appeal indicate
this appeal concerns the denial of her motion to vacate. (Sole Energy Co. v.
Petrominerals Corp. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 212, 239.)
      In sum, Mother’s notice of appeal, filed on September 21, 2022, is
untimely because it was filed more than 60 days after Grandmother served
Mother with a notice of entry of order on June 23, 2022.
(Rule 8.104(a)(1)(B).) Though rule 8.108(c)(2) applies to extend the time to
appeal to “90 days after the first notice of intention to move” to vacate the
order is filed, the rule does not assist Mother because she first filed such a
notice in May 2022, but filed her notice of appeal more than 90 days
thereafter. Having reached this conclusion, we need not and do not address
Grandmother’s argument that Mother’s third notice of motion to vacate the
order, filed on June 27, 2022, was invalid.
      Although Mother has requested oral argument, we have no jurisdiction
and must dismiss this appeal due to the untimely filing of the notice of

                                        8
appeal. The effect of this dismissal is to leave the challenged order in place.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 913; Estate of Sapp (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 86, 100.)
                                 DISPOSITION
      The appeal is dismissed. Grandmother is entitled to costs on appeal.
(Rule 8.278.)

                                     _________________________
                                     Fujisaki, Acting P.J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________
Rodríguez, J.

_________________________
Streeter, J.

                                       9
Trial Court:                  Alameda County Superior Court

Trial Judge:                  Hon. Elena Condes

Counsel:                      Law Office of Michael J. Bailey, Michael J. Bailey for
                                Appellant

                              Law Office of Bradley D. Bayan, Bradley D. Bayan for
                                Respondent

Z.V. v. Cheryl W. (A166178)

                                                  10