Debra Chimet vs. William Hall

34-2022-00320281-CU-OR-GDS: Debra Chimet vs. William Hall 05/21/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other for an Order Further Instructing the Referee to Partition the Property and Confirmation of Referees Report on Offsets in Department 53

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to “Public Notice – Civil Division – Wednesday Law and Motion Calendar” any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard in Department 39, located at 720 9th Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Peter Southworth presiding. Should argument be requested by either party, the requesting party must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing, request the hearing, and notify the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

The Court encourages parties to appear remotely for the hearing on the tentative ruling through the Court’s Zoom Application. But, any party wishing to appear in person may do so, provided that party notifies the Court by 4:00 the Court day before the hearing. The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link: https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept39 SIP Address: 16033859044@sip.zoomgov.com (833) 568-8864 ID: 16033859044 Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956.

Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a

34-2022-00320281-CU-OR-GDS: Debra Chimet vs. William Hall 05/21/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other for an Order Further Instructing the Referee to Partition the Property and Confirmation of Referees Report on Offsets in Department 53

reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list. Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant/Cross-Complainant William T. Hall’s (“Defendant”) Motion for an Order Instructing the Referee to Partition the Property and Confirmation of Referee Report is ruled upon as follows.

Factual Background

This is an action for the partition of real property containing a single-family home owned by former romantic partners, Plaintiff Debra Chiment’s (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant. On December 5, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication (“MSA”), finding that the parties are tenants in common with equal ownership interests and that Plaintiff was entitled to an interlocutory judgment for partition. The December 5, 2023 Order on the MSA left to be decided “the appropriate method of partition, the method for determining equitable offsets, and the appointment of a referee.” (Minute Order Dec. 5, 2023, at p. 4.)

On April 22, 2024, the Court subsequently entered a formal order granting Defendant’s motion for appointment of a referee to conduct an accounting. As set forth in the Court’s March 27, 2024 Minute Order granting the motion, the Court appointed attorney Matthew Taylor as a referee (“Referee”) to provide the Court with an “accounting of the various allowances, adjustments, and/or setoffs to which each party may be entitled under Code of Civil Procedure § 872.140 in connection with the eventual partition of the subject property, regardless of the manner of partition later found to be appropriate.” (Minute Order Mar. 27, 2024, at p. 3.)

The referee has since completed his accounting, and Defendant has submitted the referee’s report and recommendation to the Court. Defendant now moves the Court for an order expanding the referee’s power to determine the manner of partition, and to execute the partition in accordance

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00320281-CU-OR-GDS: Debra Chimet vs. William Hall 05/21/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other for an Order Further Instructing the Referee to Partition the Property and Confirmation of Referees Report on Offsets in Department 53

with the Court’s orders. Plaintiff filed an untimely opposition, which the Court in its discretion considers.

Discussion

Defendant now moves for an order: (1) Confirming the referee’s report on offsets; (2) Awarding Defendant $222,125.53 in offsets; (3) Expanding the Referee’s duties to include a determination of the manner of partition; and (4) Providing the Referee with the authority to execute partition if he determines that the best method of partition is partition by sale.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the Referee’s initial report is premature, as trial has not occurred and the property has not been sold, and further that the Referee’s report contains errors. Plaintiff further argues that the proper method of partition should be determined at trial, not by a referee.

Code of Civil Procedure section 872.140 provides that “The court may, in all cases, order allowance, accounting, contribution, or other compensatory adjustment among the parties according to the principles of equity.” Here, the Court appointed the Referee “to provide the Court with the accounting contemplated here” pursuant to section 872.140. The Court did not order the Referee to prepare a report pursuant to section 873.280, as cited to by Defendant.

The accounting prepared by the Referee will be considered by the Court at trial, but is not a formal report for the purposes of partition under section 873.280 as is posited by Defendant. It was prepared for the purpose of providing the Court with further information for use at trial,

In Teselle v. McLoughlin (2009 (Reh. Denied)) 173 Cal.App.4th 156, the Third District Court of Appeal explained: [T]he nature of a [judicial] accounting is unique in that it is a means of discovery. An accounting is a “species of disclosure, predicated upon the [parties’] legal inability to determine how much money, if any, is due.” (1A C.J.S., supra, Accounting, § 6, pp. 7–8, fn. omitted.) Thus, the purpose of the accounting is, in part, to discover what, if any, sums are owed to the [parties], and an accounting may be used as a discovery device. (1A C.J.S., supra, Accounting, § 26, p. 26.) (Teselle, at 180.)

Therefore, the Court DENIES Defendant’s request to approve the report or award Defendant any

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00320281-CU-OR-GDS: Debra Chimet vs. William Hall 05/21/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other for an Order Further Instructing the Referee to Partition the Property and Confirmation of Referees Report on Offsets in Department 53

offset, as the accounting was prepared not to be an adjudicatory device, but rather a mechanism for the Court to discover what sums are owed to each party. The Court itself must make the final findings with regard to offset, the documentation for which is not before the Court at this time.

With regard to Defendant’s arguments that “partition of the property is now appropriate,” as the accounting has been completed, the Court disagrees. Defendant cites to no authority which would support his request that the referee be endowed with powers to determine the best method for partition and to execute said partition.

Defendant cites to Code of Civil Procedure section 873.010(a), which states that “[t]he court shall appoint a referee to divide or sell the property as ordered by the court.” However, Defendant has not brought a noticed motion to appoint the referee to act as a partition referee, nor would such a motion be appropriate as the parties have not come to an agreement as to the appropriate method of partition. Defendant does not seek for a referee to be appointed to “divide or sell the property as ordered by the court,” but rather for a referee to be given the powers of the Court to determine the appropriate method of partition and execute said partition.

Defendant further argues that pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 872.140, “The court may, in all cases, make such orders as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this title.” However, the Court is not convinced that the order requested herein is appropriate or within the intended scope of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The Court knows of no authority which would support the relief Defendant requests here: for a referee appointed only in a limit capacity to be given authority to make the decision of the appropriate method of partition and execute said partition.

Therefore, based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion in its entirety.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.