Debra Chimet vs. William Hall

34-2022-00320281-CU-OR-GDS: Debra Chimet vs. William Hall 08/14/2025 Court Trial DAY 3 TENATIVE RULING #2 Admissibility of the Referee's report in Department 39

Tentative Ruling

The Court issues the following tentative ruling on the admissibility of the Referee’s report, in advance of Court trial day 3 scheduled on August 14, 2025, at 9:00am in department 39.

Ruling on the admissibility of the Report of Referee Matthew Taylor The law and motion judge appointed Referee Matthew Taylor to provide a report with an accounting on how much each party should receive from the sale of the subject home located at 4829 Dry Creek Road, Sacramento, California, 95828. At trial, Plaintiff Chiment objected to the admissibility of the report in its entirety. Defendant Hall argued the law and motion judge indicated the report could be used at trial. The Court starts its analysis with Code of Civil Procedure §872.820, titled “Court order of sale,” which provides in its entirety: “Notwithstanding Section 872.810, the court shall order that the property be sold and the proceeds be divided among the parties in accordance with their interests in the property as determined in the interlocutory judgment in the following situations: (a) The parties agree to such relief, by their pleadings or otherwise. (b) The court determines that, under the circumstances, sale and division of the proceeds would be more equitable than division of the property.

For the purpose of making the determination, the court may appoint a referee and take into account his report.” (Emphasis added.) Plaintiff argues the phrase “[f]or the purpose of making the determination, the court may appoint a referee and take into account his report,” means the report can only be considered to determine whether the property will be physically partitioned or sold, and nothing further. (Opposition, p. 5:27-6:3.) This is too narrow of a reading of this law. Subsection (b) allows for a referee and a corresponding report to determine if a “sale and division of the proceeds would be more equitable than division of the property.” Determining what credits the parties receive can be part of the process of determining the equities of whether a sale is appropriate.

Moreover, the statute does not state the report cannot not be considered for other purposes. The Court also notes that in Gray v. Superior Court, the Court of Appeal commented: “Given the general role of referees as preliminary examiners of fact, we have no difficulty in concluding that trial in a partition action has commenced once evidentiary proceedings are begun before a referee. Despite the fact that the partition referee's report was not in itself dispositive or tantamount to a final judgment, the trial proceedings began when the parties appeared before the referee to present their evidence.” (Gray v.

Superior Court (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 165, 171.) The Court of Appeal further commented: “The referee was the factfinding arm of the court.” (Id. at p. 173.) The language in Gray indicates the Referee, and their report, occupy a special role in

34-2022-00320281-CU-OR-GDS: Debra Chimet vs. William Hall 08/14/2025 Court Trial DAY 3 TENATIVE RULING #2 Admissibility of the Referee's report in Department 39

adjudicating partition causes of action. The law and motion Court order dated June 13, 2024 stated: “Here, the Court appointed the Referee to prepare an accounting of the allowances, adjustments, and or set offs to which each party may be entitled under CCP section 872.140, and that accounting was contemplated to be done before any future partition is ordered.” This order makes it clear the Referee was appointed by this Court as a “factfinding arm of the court” to prepare an accounting. Again, this confirms Referee Taylor has a special role in this proceeding to discover relevant facts to assist the Court.

The law and motion Judge stated the following in a ruling dated 5/25/25: “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 ” (Emphasis added.) The law and motion judge added: “Therefore, the Court DENIES Defendant’s request to approve the report or award Defendant any 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.” This second ruling does indicate there are some limitations on Referee Taylor’s appointment. The Court considers these limitations in its ruling. But to take Plaintiff’s position that the report should be completely ignored, would render the order appointing Referee Taylor “for the purpose of providing the Court with further information for use at trial” a nullity.

Based on the language in §872.820(b), the discussion in Gray regarding the role of a referee in a partition action, and the orders from the law and motion judge, the Court concludes it can “take into account” the report in making its final decision in this partition action, including the equities in the distribution of the sale proceeds. This conclusion, however, does not end the inquiry. Plaintiff has objections to the admissibility of the supporting documentation to the report. The attachments include items such as bills, banking statements, and summaries of documents.

Defendant failed to independently admit such documentation at trial and, instead, assumed it would all come in trial as attachments to the report. The Court understands how Defendant could have been a bit confused by statements such as that “[t]he accounting prepared by the Referee will be considered by the Court at trial” and that the report is “a mechanism for the Court to discover what sums are owed to each party.”

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00320281-CU-OR-GDS: Debra Chimet vs. William Hall 08/14/2025 Court Trial DAY 3 TENATIVE RULING #2 Admissibility of the Referee's report in Department 39

(emphasis added.) Those statements seem clear that the report will be used in some manner at trial but ambiguous as to how the report could be used. Despite the ambiguity in the language in prior rulings, it would be inappropriate to admit the attachments to the report without any evidentiary due process. Even if the Court can consider the report, there is no “magic paper clip” that makes everything attached to the report automatically admissible at trial. Akin to a People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665 objection regarding hearsay given to expert witnesses, parties cannot make inadmissible documents admissible by handing them to a court appointed Referee.

This would be no different than claiming every document added to an exhibit binder at trial is automatically admissible because it was provided to the judge. In terms of the objections to the report itself (not including the attachments which will not be considered unless independently admitted) based on authentication and a failure to call Referee Taylor as a witness, those objections are overruled. Referee Taylor is a “factfinding arm of the court.” There is no need to call Mr. Taylor to testify as a witness simply to authenticate the report.

The report was ordered by the Court, filed with the Court, Plaintiff and Defendant acknowledged participating in providing documentation for the report, and Defendant acknolwedged receiving a copy of the report. These facts are sufficient to authenticate the report. It is also relevant that Plaintiff has not alleged that the report has been fabricated or altered. If those were legitimate concerns, the Court would, of course, hear authentication objections. Those objections have not been made to the Court’s understanding.

Given the ambiguity about the role of the report in the prior law and motion rulings, and the fact that Plaintiff fully objected to the use of the report at trial, the Court finds good cause to reopen the trial to allow the parties to attempt to admit anything attached to the Referee’s report under the Evidence Code. (Rosenfeld v. Cohen (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 1035, 1052 [“Trial courts have broad discretion in deciding whether to reopen evidence.”].) During this second phase of trial, documents outside the report will not be considered absent good cause.

Similarly, testimony not inextricably intertwined with the Referee’s report and attached documents will not be permitted absent good cause. Plaintiff will call witnesses first (including attempting to admit any documents attached to the report), then Defendant (including attempting to admit any documents attached to the report), then Plaintiff can call rebuttal witnesses. After this second phase of trial, the Court will review the report and consider it, keeping in mind that the recommendations not supported by admissible evidence carry no weight. (Dynair Electronics, Inc. v.

Video Cable, Inc. (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 11, 20 [“Thus before a special reference is accorded the status of a special finding of fact, the trial court must have accepted it as such; otherwise the report, if admitted into evidence, is treated as any other evidence.”; emphasis added].) The Court will not simply ratify the Referee’s legal determinations, assuming any were made, since legal determinations are to be made solely by the Court. (De Guere v. Universal City Studios (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 482, 501 [“Issues of contract interpretation are questions of law for the trial court, but not for the referee to decide”].)

Essentially, the Court will consider the report as an appellate court would consider an “amicus brief.” In the end, the Court

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00320281-CU-OR-GDS: Debra Chimet vs. William Hall 08/14/2025 Court Trial DAY 3 TENATIVE RULING #2 Admissibility of the Referee's report in Department 39

will make factual findings based on the admissible evidence (during both phases of the trial) and the applicable law.