Court Opinion

ID: 9951706
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-18 20:02:36.802767+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:42:08.237735
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/18/24 Turner v. Thomas CA2/5
     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

                              SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                             DIVISION FIVE

 DARLEEN TURNER,                                                        B320851

           Plaintiff and Appellant,                                     (Los Angeles County
                                                                        Super. Ct. No.
           v.                                                           19STCV41284)

 WILLIAM THOMAS, as Personal
 Representative, etc., et al.,

           Defendants and Respondents.

     APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Armen Tamzarian, Judge. Affirmed.

         Darleen Turner, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

     Randall & Associates and Teddi J. Randall, for Defendant
and Respondent William Thomas.
       Plaintiff and appellant Darlene Turner appeals from a
judgment following a court trial at which the trial court ruled
that she failed to prove that defendants and respondents William
Thomas, as the Personal Representative of James Thomas
(Estate of James), and Frank Johnson, as the Administrator of
the Estate of Carol Thomas (Estate of Carol), owed Turner money
for unpaid child support. Turner also purports to appeal from the
trial court’s subsequent denial of a motion for reconsideration.
Turner fails to show the trial court erred, and we affirm.
       The parties are familiar with the facts and procedural
history, and our opinion does not meet the criteria for
publication. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1105(c).) We therefore
resolve this appeal by memorandum opinion pursuant to
Standard 8.1 of the Standards of Judicial Administration and
consistent with constitutional principles (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 14
[“Decisions of the Supreme Court and courts of appeal that
determine causes shall be in writing with reasons stated”]; Lewis
v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1263, fn. omitted
[three-paragraph discussion of issue on appeal satisfies
constitutional requirement because “an opinion is not a brief in
reply to counsel’s arguments. [Citation.] In order to state the
reasons, grounds, or principles upon which a decision is based,
[an appellate court] need not discuss every case or fact raised by
counsel in support of the parties’ positions”].)

                                     2
                TRIAL COURT PROCEDINGS1

      Turner and James Thomas are the parents of Cameo
Thomas, who was born in 1987. Cameo was raised exclusively by
Turner, and James was never involved in Cameo’s life. In 1990,
Turner sought to obtain child support from James, and the
County of Los Angeles filed a complaint against James to
establish the paternity of Cameo and for child support in case
No. BD017757. On September 9, 1993, the County and James
entered into a stipulated judgment establishing that James is the
father of Cameo and for issuance of a Wage and Earnings
Assignment Order; the stipulated judgment and order required
payment of $872 per month for child support by James to the
“Court Trustee” beginning in October 1993.
      James died in about 2000. Turner consulted with lawyers
at that time about unpaid child support, but she made no effort to
take legal action to have them collect it. Turner moved to
Michigan in 2001 and has lived continuously there since that
time. Turner learned the Estate of Carol was being probated in
2016 and that the Estate of James was being probated in 2018.
In 2019, Turner went to child support services to get information
from case No. BD017757, a hearing was held, and she obtained
some documents from the file in that case.

      1 The court grants the requests for judicial notice filed by
respondent William Thomas on June 30, 2023, and November 9,
2023. The court also orders filed the exhibits submitted by
appellant Turner on July 13, 2023, in connection with her
opening brief, and on its own motion takes judicial notice of those
exhibits.

                                    3
       On January 28, 2020, Turner filed the operative amended
complaint against the Estate of James and the Estate of Carol,
seeking damages of approximately $155,000. The complaint
alleges that, at the time of his death, James had an unpaid
balance from the September 1993 court order of child support.
The complaint also alleges that Carol died in 2013, she was the
wife of James, and her estate has property that is part of the
Estate of James that could be used for the back child support.
       On January 28, 2022, the court held a one-day bench trial
during which Cameo and Turner testified as the only witnesses.
The parties also agreed upon the admission of several exhibits,
without any objection from Turner. Turner testified, among
other issues, to the information set forth above. In addition, she
testified: She never received any child support payments from
James for Cameo. Until Turner filed the current lawsuit, she
never filed any action in court against James, or any other person
or party, to try to collect the child support. The only case against
James for support (BD017757) was filed by the County, not
Turner. Turner did not file any papers to collect child support in
the case that the County had brought against James. There has
never been a court order requiring James to pay child support to
Turner. At the time the County obtained the Wage Earnings and
Assignment Order in 1993, Turner was receiving public
assistance. Turner cannot recall the amount of public assistance.
Turner believes she got off public assistance in 1995, but has no
documentation or proof. She acknowledged answering in the
affirmative an interrogatory asking if she was continually on
government benefits, including welfare, between 1993 and 2000,
but also stating she did not know the exact dates. In testimony,
she stated, “I did get some assistance, but I don’t know the

                                    4
dates.” She also received social security from James in the $500
per month range from 1997 up until he died, which payments
continued for many years after his death.
       Among the admitted exhibits, the court received the
September 9, 1993 stipulation and wage assignment from case
No. BD017757, and an April 29, 2019 report that Turner testified
was provided to her by child support services from the file in case
No. BD017757. The report lists for each month, beginning with
July 1995, the $852 owing in child support up until April 2019.
The report shows total payments of zero dollars, a principal
balance of approximately $49,000, interest of approximately
$106,000, and a total balance of approximately $155,000.
       The court also received a May 14, 2019, document titled
“Position Statement,” marked by Turner but offered at trial by
the Estate of James. The document lists Turner as the
“complainant” and indicates that about 12 years after the County
had closed its case in 2007, Turner sought information from the
County on the arrears balance. The document lists three issues:
whether the County properly closed its case in 2007; whether the
County provided Turner with the child support order; and
whether Turner provided sufficient information to reopen the
case. The document indicates that Turner told the County in
April 2019 that she did not want the County’s case reopened, but
that she had an attorney who was attempting to handle the
matter in the probate court.
       After the close of evidence and argument by the parties, the
court issued an oral statement of decision and ruled that Turner
failed to prove her case against the estate defendants by a
preponderance of the evidence. In particular, the court noted
that there is no court order that required James to pay anything

                                    5
directly to Turner. Further, the record did not include proof of
what James paid to the County; and, even inferring that James
paid nothing because Turner states she received nothing, the
record did not include sufficient evidence for the court to
determine the amount that would be due and owing to Turner
from the County, as there were issues involving public assistance
and the amount owing would have to be determined in the court
that handled the County’s child support matter. The court also
added, with respect to the Estate of Carol, that there was no
theory on which Carol could be construed to owe child support to
Turner; at best, Turner had advanced an issue of enforcement, if
property belonging to the Estate of Carol was determined to be
property of the Estate of James. The court set an order to show
cause regarding entry of judgment, and ordered the Estate of
James to prepare the judgment.
       In February 2022, Turner filed a motion for
reconsideration, contending that the trial court erred when it
indicated the support payments were owed to the County, rather
than to her. Turner argued the court erred in relying on the
order showing money from the judgment was owed to the County
and not her; she argued that neither the County nor the
defendants had mentioned before trial that she was not owed the
money, and she had no opportunity to call witnesses from the Los
Angeles County child support services for testimony. Turner also
argued that the court had not acknowledged the import of two
trial exhibits: the May 2019 Position Statement and the April
2019 report of the history of child support payments, with a
balance of approximately $155,000.
       After a hearing on March 23, 2023, the court denied the
motion by minute order stating: Turner failed to present any

                                   6
new or different facts, circumstances, or law; the court had
considered the two exhibits cited by Turner; and Turner was the
party who had the burden at trial to prove her claims, which she
had not.2
      The court signed and filed its judgment on March 23, 2022,
which both the attorney for the Estate of James and the clerk
served along with a filed Notice of Entry of Judgment that same
day.
      Turner filed a timely notice of appeal.3

                             DISCUSSION

      Standard of Review

      “In reviewing a judgment based upon a statement of
decision following a bench trial, we review questions of law de
novo. [Citation.] We apply a substantial evidence standard of
review to the trial court’s findings of fact. [Citation.] Under this
deferential standard of review, findings of fact are liberally
construed to support the judgment and we consider the evidence
in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, drawing all
reasonable inferences in support of the findings. [Citation.] [¶] A
single witness’s testimony may constitute substantial evidence to

      2 The minute order indicates that a court reporter was
present, but our record on appeal does not include the transcript
of the hearing.

      3 Respondent Frank Johnson, as Administrator of the
Estate of Carol Thomas, did not file a respondent’s brief on
appeal.

                                    7
support a finding. [Citation.] It is not our role as a reviewing
court to reweigh the evidence or to assess witness credibility.
[Citation.] ‘A judgment or order of a lower court is presumed to
be correct on appeal, and all intendments and presumptions are
indulged in favor of its correctness.’ [Citation.] Specifically,
‘[u]nder the doctrine of implied findings, the reviewing court
must infer, following a bench trial, that the trial court impliedly
made every factual finding necessary to support its decision.’
[Citation.]” (Thompson v. Asimos (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 970, 981.)
       “ ‘A judgment may not be reversed on appeal . . . unless
“after an examination of the entire cause, including the
evidence,” it appears the error caused a “miscarriage of justice.”
(Cal. Const., art. VI, § 13.) When the error is one of state law
only, it generally does not warrant reversal unless there is a
reasonable probability that in the absence of the error, a result
more favorable to the appealing party would have been reached.
[Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Hasso v. Hapke (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th
107, 146.)

      Analysis

      Turner has not shown that the trial court erred in its
determination that she failed to carry her burden of proof to
establish that the estate defendants owed an ascertainable
amount of unpaid child support to her. Substantial evidence
introduced at trial established the following: The only judgment
requiring a payment of child support by James upon which
arrearages were alleged was the 1993 stipulated judgment in
case No. BD017757 providing for an assignment of wages payable
to the County. Turner never sought, nor obtained a court order of

                                    8
child support for James to pay support to her directly. At the
time of the stipulated judgment and wage assignment order,
Turner was receiving public assistance that required her to
permanently assign child support to the County, until that public
aid was no longer received by Turner and the amount of aid was
reimbursed to the County. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 11477, subd.
(a)(3) [version effective until December 31, 1999]; Welfare &
Institutions Code, section 11477, subdivision (a)(3)(A) [current
law].) There is no evidence that the assignment to the County
was ever modified to provide for payment of child support to
Turner.
       In an effort to deal with the lack of a child support order
requiring payment to her, Turner contends that, after she
stopped receiving public assistance, she became entitled to
enforce the child support order in a new civil action. Turner
provides no persuasive legal authority to support this argument,
and it runs contrary to the operative language of section 11477.
(See In re Marriage of Shore (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 290, 298
[“Appellant’s argument that . . . the right of the County to collect
past due payments should terminate when the custodial parent
ceases to receive AFDC aid, and that the custodial parent should
be given a free hand to collect the past payments from the other
parent, cannot be accepted”])
       But even assuming that, as a matter of law, Turner became
the party to whom payment must be made when she no longer
was receiving any public assistance, there is nevertheless a
failure of proof. Despite Turner’s apparent contention that she
ceased receiving public assistance in 1995, the trial record
contains substantial evidence to the contrary. In her testimony,
Turner first said that she ceased to be on government assistance

                                    9
in 1995; but, she then conceded that she had answered an
interrogatory in the affirmative asking whether she was
continually on government benefits from 1993 and March 2000.
She ultimately stated she was not receiving public benefits up
until 2000, but admitted, “I did get some assistance, but I don’t
know the dates.” In her briefing on appeal, she “acknowledges
that she was a part-time worker at a point of time that received
assistance periodically.” Accordingly, substantial evidence
supports the trial court’s determination that Turner did not prove
as a factual matter a particular period when she was not
receiving public assistance such that she was entitled to collect
on the wage and assignment order.
       Further, even assuming Turner’s evidence established that
some of the child support money exceeded the public assistance
she received, the record supports the court’s implicit finding at
trial that the amount due to her was not reasonably
ascertainable based on the evidence admitted. Specifically,
Turner claims that the May 14, 2019 “Position Statement” she
obtained from child support services definitively establishes the
amount she was due: she asserts that the document’s references
to the “assigned” and “unassigned” amounts of unpaid child
support show that she was entitled to the “unassigned” portion.
On its face, the document does discuss various audits and
arrearages calculations, with the most recent calculation of
“unassigned arrears” being in 1999 in the amount of
approximately $41,000. But the document also shows on its face
that subsequent modifications were made to arrearage payments
and that as of 2013 child support services had been unable to
provide the balance because the arrearage amounts no longer
existed due to the prior closing of the case. Moreover, there was

                                  10
no competent testimony at trial as to the basis for, or meaning of
the document and its calculations. The record amply supports
the trial court’s implied finding that Turner had not met her
burden to establish that the estate defendants owed her an
ascertainable amount of arrearages based on this summary
memo, or any other evidence introduced at trial. We do not
reweigh evidence on appeal and defer to the trial court’s
findings.4
      Finally, Turner argues on appeal that the trial court
interfered with her ability to try her case, in particular by
micromanaging the process of selecting and offering exhibits
during her case-in-chief. The trial transcript refutes Turner’s
claim. Throughout the trial proceedings, the trial court

      4 We note that Turner argued in her motion for
reconsideration that the trial court had failed to give adequate
consideration to the Position Statement. However, Turner did
not provide a reporter’s transcript of the hearing on that motion;
accordingly, we do not know whether the trial court made specific
comments or findings as to the meaning, weight, or credibility it
gave to the “unassigned” arrearages when it rejected her motion.
The absence of an adequate record in this regard provides an
alternative basis to affirm the court’s ruling. “In many cases
involving the substantial evidence or abuse of discretion standard
of review, . . . a reporter’s transcript . . . of the proceedings will be
indispensable.” (Southern California Gas Co. v. Flannery (2016)
5 Cal.App.5th 476, 483.) If the record is inadequate to allow
meaningful review, “ ‘ “the appellant defaults and the decision of
the trial court should be affirmed.” ’ [Citation.] ‘ . . . [Appellant]
has the burden of providing an adequate record. [Citation.]
Failure to provide an adequate record on an issue requires that
the issue be resolved against [appellant].’ [Citation.]” (Foust v.
San Jose Construction Co., Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 181, 187.)

                                      11
expressed patience and care in instructing Turner how to present
her case. With respect to exhibits, as Turner neared the end of
her presentation of evidence, the trial court granted a break for
her to go off the record, review all of her planned exhibits, and
then offer any or all of them into evidence. Following the break,
Turner offered the exhibits she had selected, and all were
admitted into evidence without objection.

                         DISPOSITION

      The judgment is affirmed. Defendant and Respondent
William Thomas, as personal representative of the Estate of
James Thomas, the only respondent who filed a brief in this
matter, is awarded his costs on appeal.
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                           MOOR, Acting P. J.

We concur:

                  KIM, J.

                  LEE, J.*

      * Judge of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County,
assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of
the California Constitution.

                                   12