Court Opinion

ID: 9881664
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-03 17:19:33.675765+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:14:02.421071
License: Public Domain

Filed 10/3/23 Vaughan v. Heer CA3
                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                      THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                                     (Sacramento)
                                                            ----

 GITTA VAUGHAN, as Trustee, etc.,                                                              C095969

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                          (Super. Ct. No.
                                                                                 34201400171630PRTRFRC)
           v.

 RANDHIR HEER et al.,

                    Defendants and Appellants.

         Appellants Randhir Heer and Dominique G. Engel appeal from two trial court
orders, one denying a motion to disqualify the judge pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
section 170.6 and the other approving a trustee’s accounting following the court-ordered
sale of real property. As to the first, we conclude we lack the power to review on appeal
a ruling on a disqualification motion. As to the second, because appellants have failed to
present reasoned argument with citations to the record and legal authority, we conclude
appellants have forfeited the appeal of this order. We affirm.

                                                             1
                  FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
       We provide limited background from the incomplete record provided and from the
facts agreed to in the parties’ briefs. (See Artal v. Allen (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 273,
274; see generally 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (6th ed. 2023) Appeal, § 355.)
       Petitioner and respondent Gitta Vaughan serves as trustee of the Christian Engel
2004 Revocable Trust. The trust owns half a piece of real property, and the other half
was owned at the outset of the case by Engel. Vaughan petitioned the probate court to
partition the property by sale, which the court granted in 2015. Engel then gifted her
interest in the property to Heer, which the court considered a conspiracy to avoid the
court’s order. The court then issued an order requiring Heer as the new owner to
cooperate in the partition sale and to pay the additional expenses caused by the transfer,
including over $43,000 in attorney fees.
       In 2019, the probate court appointed an elisor to sign documents on Heer’s behalf
to effectuate the sale of the property. Also in 2019, despite an injunction prohibiting
Heer from transferring the property without the court’s permission, Heer transferred his
interest in the property. The court ordered that grant deed cancelled and ordered Heer to
pay almost $6,000 in additional attorney fees. Vaughan then discovered a correction
necessary to the deed granting Engel’s share of the property to Heer. In July 2021, the
trial court, specifically Judge Dhillon, granted Vaughan’s motion to appoint an elisor for
Engel to execute a corrected grant deed.
       After the property sold, Vaughan set a hearing to approve her accounting from the
sale and the allocation of fees, costs, and proceeds between the trust beneficiaries and
Heer. In January 2022, the probate court continued the hearing to permit appellants to

                                             2
file a peremptory challenge to Judge Dhillon, which appellants filed in February 2022.1
At the hearing in March 2022, the probate court denied the peremptory challenges as
untimely because Judge Dhillon had already made substantive decisions in the case. The
court then approved the accounting and the allocation of fees, costs, and proceeds, which
directed over $1,000,000 to Vaughan and $674,204.78 to Heer. The court issued a
written order on May 9, 2022.
                                      DISCUSSION
                                             I
                                  Peremptory Challenges
       Appellants challenge the probate court’s denial of their peremptory challenge of
Judge Dhillon. As we explain below, we lack jurisdiction to review the denial.
       Code of Civil Procedure section 170.3, subdivision (d)2 provides, in relevant part:
“The determination of the question of the disqualification of a judge is not an appealable
order and may be reviewed only by a writ of mandate from the appropriate court of
appeal sought only by the parties to the proceeding.” This means section 170.3,
subdivision (d) “prescribes the exclusive means of appellate review of an unsuccessful
peremptory challenge motion.” (People v. Hull (1991) 1 Cal.4th 266, 276.)
We lack the power to review on appeal an order the Legislature has made nonappealable.
(Cal. Const., art. III, § 3; Jennings v. Marralle (1994) 8 Cal.4th 121, 126-127.)
       Appellants have not petitioned for a writ of mandate. We therefore lack the power
to review the denial of their peremptory challenges and do not address appellants’
arguments on this issue.

1 On our own motion, we order the record augmented to include the peremptory
challenge and supporting declaration filed by Heer in the probate court on February 14,
2022. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.155(a)(1) & (a)(1)(A).)
2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

                                             3
                                              II
                          Allocation of Fees, Costs, and Proceeds
        Appellants also challenge the probate court’s allocation of fees, costs, and
proceeds from the sale of the property. Appellants have forfeited this challenge.
        “It is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate the existence of reversible error.” (Del
Real v. City of Riverside (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 761, 766.) “To demonstrate error,
appellant must present meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and
citations to facts in the record that support the claim of error. [Citations.] When a point
is asserted without argument and authority for the proposition, ‘it is deemed to be without
foundation and requires no discussion by the reviewing court.’ [Citations.] Hence,
conclusory claims of error will fail.” (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408.)
        With respect to citations to the record, the appellant must “[s]upport any reference
to a matter in the record by a citation to the volume and page number of the record where
the matter appears.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C).) “If a party fails to
support an argument with the necessary citations to the record, that portion of the brief
may be stricken and the argument deemed to have been [forfeited].” (Duarte v. Chino
Community Hospital (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 849, 856.) As the reviewing court, we will
not perform an independent, unassisted review of the record “ ‘in search of error or
grounds to support the judgment.’ ” (McComber v. Wells (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 512,
522.)
        Appellants also must “[s]tate each point under a separate heading or subheading
summarizing the point.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B).) “This is not a mere
technical requirement; it is ‘designed to lighten the labors of the appellate tribunals by
requiring the litigants to present their cause systematically and so arranged that those
upon whom the duty devolves of ascertaining the rule of law to apply may be advised, as
they read, of the exact question under consideration, instead of being compelled to
extricate it from the mass.’ ” (In re S.C., supra, 138 Cal.App.4th at p. 408.) “Failure to

                                              4
provide proper headings forfeits issues that may be discussed in the brief but are not
clearly identified by a heading.” (Pizarro v. Reynoso (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 172, 179.)
Finally, “ ‘ “[a]rguments should be tailored according to the applicable standard of
appellate review.” [Citation.] Failure to acknowledge the proper scope of review is a
concession of a lack of merit,’ ” rendering the arguments subject to forfeiture. (Ewald v.
Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 947, 948.) The foregoing rules apply
to all litigants, including those who represent themselves on appeal. (McComber v.
Wells, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th at p. 523.)
       Appellants’ briefs do not cite legal authority or facts in the record to support their
contention that the probate court erred in allocating funds. Nor do appellants provide any
headings to summarize their points, leaving us to guess what precisely they contend the
probate court did wrong from their briefing. Appellants never identify an applicable
standard of review or provide argument tailored to that standard. We also note that
Heer’s oral argument at the hearing on the accounting and allocation of funds is not
evidence and cannot establish a factual basis for any alleged error. (See Evid. Code,
§§ 710-711; Zolly v. City of Oakland (2022) 13 Cal.5th 780, 796.) We must therefore
conclude appellants’ arguments are without foundation and deem them forfeited.
       We provide two examples to demonstrate appellants’ failure to make reasoned
arguments supported by citations to authority and the record. First, Heer asserts, “It was
wrong for the Court not to compensate me for loss of use due to [Vaughan’s] fraud in
making a lease and maintenance agreement with her brother’s nephew as ‘a placement’
all the while [Vaughan] and the beneficiaries [of the trust] had full use and enjoyment of
the property.” But Heer fails to cite any facts in the record to establish that such a lease
and maintenance agreement exists, fails to mention the probate court enjoined him from
visiting the property, and cites no legal authority establishing a rule that requires him to
be compensated. Engel asserts the probate court gave “an excessive amount of money to
[Vaughan and her attorney] in attorney fees, maintenance, and ongoing expenses,” but

                                              5
likewise fails to cite to the record or legal authority establishing when amounts become
“excessive.” And appellants have not included Vaughan’s request to approve the
allocation of fees, costs, and proceeds or any of the briefing that proceeded the hearing.
       In the absence of any reasoned analysis applying the pertinent standard of review
with citations to the record and legal authority, appellants’ arguments are forfeited.
                                      DISPOSITION
       The May 9, 2022 order approving the accounting and allocation of fees, costs, and
proceeds from the sale is affirmed. Respondent is entitled to recover her costs on appeal.
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(1).)

                                                   /s/
                                                  MESIWALA, J.

We concur:

 /s/
ROBIE, Acting P. J.

 /s/
DUARTE, J.

                                              6