Court Opinion

ID: 9945617
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-28 00:02:37.874957+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:34.592202
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/27/24 Skytte v. Skytte CA4/3

                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

                                     FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                DIVISION THREE

 BIRTHE B. SKYTTE et al.,

    Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and                                   G061364
 Respondents,
                                                                       (Super. Ct. No. 30-2017-00902820)
           v.
                                                                       OPINION
 CHRISTIAN SKYTTE et al., Individually
 and as Trustees, etc.,

    Defendants, Cross-complainants and
 Appellants.

                   Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County,
Walter P. Schwarm, Judge. Affirmed.
                   Law Offices of Thomas M. McIntosh and Thomas M. McIntosh for
Defendants, Cross-complainants and Appellants.
                   Law Office of David E. Libman, David E. Libman; Jeff Lewis Law, Jeffrey
Lewis, Sean C. Rotstan and Kyla Dayton for Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and
Respondents.
              Christian Skytte and his wife Catherine J. Skytte (appellants) challenge the
trial court’s denial of their motion to set aside the voluntary dismissal and settlement of
this action. Among other things, they claim the court abused its discretion by denying
their request to continue the hearing on the motion. Because they fail to address the
court’s reasons for denying their motion and because they provide an inadequate record
as to their claimed continuance request, they cannot establish error in the court’s rulings.
We therefore affirm.
                                          FACTS
              In 2017, Birthe B. Skytte, trustee of the Skytte Family Trust and Christian’s
                                                                                           1
mother, sued appellants in connection with a property on State Avenue in Costa Mesa.
Appellants countersued, adding other family members as cross-defendants. In 2018, the
parties settled and dismissed their competing claims. Under the settlement agreement,
Birthe was to lend appellants $230,000, secured by a deed of trust on the State Avenue
property. If Birthe died before the loan was paid off, the balance was to be satisfied with
amounts appellants would be entitled to receive as beneficiaries of the trust. The parties
dismissed their respective claims.
              In 2021, appellants moved to vacate the dismissal of the action under Code
of Civil Procedure section 473 and the superior court’s equitable powers, claiming the
dismissal and settlement were the result of their mistake and extrinsic fraud by Birthe,
among other grounds. They claimed that Birthe “had committed fraud and/or concealed
pertinent and relevant facts and circumstances regarding the management, disposition,
hypothecation and liquidation of [trust] assets,” and in particular, that she may have
“improperly invaded” two trust properties on American Avenue in Costa Mesa.

1
              We refer to the parties by their first names because they share a last name.

                                              2
              In March 2022, following a hearing, the trial court denied appellants’
        2
motion. The court concluded that to the extent appellants sought relief under Code of
Civil Procedure section 473, their motion was untimely. It further concluded that to the
extent they sought relief under the court’s equitable powers based on mistake or extrinsic
fraud, they established no grounds for relief. The court noted appellants’ motion “d[id]
not identify the specific misrepresentation(s) by [Birthe] that unfairly prevented [them]
from fully adjudicating this case.” Additionally, it concluded any misrepresentation
about the American Avenue properties could not have induced appellants to settle
because those properties were not the subject of this action. This appeal followed.
                                       DISCUSSION
              Appellants challenge the trial court’s denial of their motion to vacate the
dismissal of their claims. Their challenge must fail, however, as they present no
meaningful argument in support. Appellants do not dispute the court’s conclusion that
their motion was untimely to the extent they sought relief under Code of Civil Procedure
section 473. (Id., subd. (b) [application for relief untimely if made more than six months
after judgment].) As for equitable relief for extrinsic fraud, appellants fail to address the
court’s reasons for denying it. They do not address the court’s conclusion that their
motion “d[id] not identify the specific misrepresentation(s) by [Birthe] that unfairly
prevented [them] from fully adjudicating this case.” Nor do they address the court’s
conclusion that any misrepresentation about the American Avenue properties could not
have induced them to settle because those properties were not the subject of this action.
Without addressing the court’s grounds for denying them relief, appellants cannot
establish error in the court’s ruling. (People v. JTH Tax, Inc. (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th

2
             The hearing was not reported, and the record contains no agreed or settled
statement describing it.

                                              3
1219, 1237 [appellant’s failure to address all grounds for trial court’s ruling forfeits
appellate claim].)
              Appellants assign error to the trial court’s denial of their motion to continue
the hearing on their set aside motion. However, the clerk’s transcript of the proceedings
includes no reference to such a motion, let alone appellants’ arguments and evidence in
                                              3
support or the court’s reasons for denying it. On this record, appellants cannot establish
error in the denial of any motion to continue. (Lemelle v. Superior Court (1978) 77
Cal.App.3d 148, 156-157 [without knowing what grounds were advanced, what
arguments were made, and what facts may have been admitted, mutually assumed or
judicially noticed, “no abuse of discretion can be found except on the basis of
speculation”].)
                                       DISPOSITION
              The trial court’s postjudgment order is affirmed. Respondents shall recover
their costs on appeal.

                                                   O’LEARY, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

GOETHALS, J.

SANCHEZ, J.

3
               As noted, the hearing was not reported, and the record does not include an
agreed or settled statement.

                                              4