Court Opinion

ID: 9748871
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 16:16:14.647368+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:40.153410
License: Public Domain

GRIGNON, Acting P. J., Dissenting.
I have grave concerns about the correctness of the majority’s holding that a workers’ compensation lump sum permanent disability award received during the marriage is separate property. (Northwestern Redwood Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1920) 184 Cal. 484 [194 P. 31] [workers’ compensation permanent disability benefits are community property]; cf. In re Marriage ofStenquist (1978) 21 Cal.3d 779 [148 Cal.Rptr. 9, 582 P.2d 96]; In re Marriage of Jones (1975) 13 Cal.3d 457 [119 Cal.Rptr. 108, 531 P.2d 420]; In re Marriage of Fisk (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1698 [4 Cal.Rptr.2d 95]; In re Marriage of McDonald (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 509 [125 Cal.Rptr. 160] [payments received postseparation or postdissolution are separate property].) I also have grave concerns about the propriety of the majority’s conclusion that certain documents may have been received into evidence, and therefore may be relied on to support the majority’s opinion, when the trial court expressly stated the documents had not been received into evidence. I will, however, leave these concerns for another case in which the issues are properly before us.
I dissent on the ground that the entire case, including trial, proceeded on one theory, and the theory relied on by the majority to reverse the judgment of the family law court relies on an entirely different theory, not raised by Wife until posttrial motions. In my view, the theory of trial doctrine should be applied to restrain us from addressing Wife’s new theory of the case.
“The theory upon which a case was tried in the court below must be followed on appeal.”1 (Strasberg v. Odyssey Group, Inc. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 906, 920 [59 Cal.Rptr.2d 474].) “ ‘ “A party is not permitted to change his position and adopt a new and different theory on appeal. To permit him to do so would not only be unfair to the trial court, but manifestly unjust to the opposing litigant. [Citation.]” ’ [Citations.]” (Ibid.) The theory of trial *628doctrine is applicable where “the evidence offered and authorities submitted in a trial are directed solely to establishment of a particular legal relationship or legal doctrine of liability or defense. To permit a change in either of these on appeal would, in most cases, be highly prejudicial and accordingly is not permitted.” (9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, supra, Appeal, § 405, p. 456.) Thus, in actions between former spouses relating to property issues, the appellant may not adopt a new theory on appeal as to the nature of the property in question. (Baskett v. Crook (1948) 86 Cal.App.2d 355, 363 [195 P.2d 39] [change from theory of property jointly acquired during marriage as husband and wife to theory of resulting trust not permitted on appeal].)
There is an exception to the theory of trial doctrine. An appellate court has discretion to consider a new and different theory “ ‘where a question of law only is presented on the facts appearing in the record.’ [Citation.] ‘ “But if the new theory contemplates a factual situation the consequences of which are open to controversy and were not put in issue or presented at the trial the opposing party should not be required to defend against it on appeal.” ’ ” (Strasberg v. Odyssey Group, Inc., supra, 51 Cal.App.4th at p. 920.) A new legal theory is more likely to be considered on appeal if an important issue of public policy is involved. (In re Marriage of Freeman (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1437, 1450 [53 Cal.Rptr.2d 439]; In re Marriage of Weaver (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 478, 488 [273 Cal.Rptr. 696].) In exercising its discretion as to the application of this exception, the appellate court should consider whether the party raising the new theory waived the right to assert the new theory. (In re Marriage of Weaver, supra, 224 Cal.App.3d at p. 489.)
Wife’s theory of the trial was that there was an unequivocal oral agreement and pattern of behavior between the parties from the date of marriage to the time of physical separation that the earnings of the parties would be their separate property. Wife argued that Husband should be equitably estopped from asserting his community property interest in her workers’ compensation award by the preexisting oral agreement. The case was tried on this theory and all of the evidence and argument presented by the parties related to this theory. The family law court found that the workers’ compensation award received during the marriage was community property. In a motion for reconsideration or new trial, for the first time Wife argued that the workers’ compensation award was not community property. The family law court rejected this theory on the ground that it had not been timely raised and the documents supporting the argument had not been received into evidence. The family law court denied the motion.
Wife raises this same new theory on appeal. The majority concludes it is purely a legal issue. It is not. As indicated by the majority, the entirety of the workers’ compensation award paid to Wife is not separate property under any *629legal theory. Some factual apportionment must be undertaken. The majority further concludes the relevant facts are undisputed. They are not. Not all of the relevant facts were even received into evidence.2 To the extent some facts are undisputed, that may be because those facts were not at issue under Wife’s theory of the case. Wife chose to present her case on the theory of equitable estoppel. This decision may have been tactical, based on the fact that there was no authority for the proposition that workers’ compensation awards received during the marriage are separate property. Husband presented his case with Wife’s theory of the case in mind. Wife lost and does not argue the family law court erred under the theory upon which the case was tried. Under these circumstances, it is “unfair” to the family law court, and “manifestly unjust” to Husband to reverse the judgment on the basis of a new theory affirmatively waived by Wife in the family law court.

 The theory of trial doctrine is not to be confused with the related but separate doctrine of points not properly raised in the trial court. (9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, §§ 394, 399, pp. 444, 451.)

 The “Workers’ Compensation Commutation Worksheet,” relied on by the majority, was not received into evidence.