Phan v. Phan CA6

Filed 6/3/25 Phan v. Phan CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

ALAN QUANG PHAN, H050579 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 16CV303083)

v.

CHRISTINE PHAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Plaintiff and respondent Alan Quang Phan secured an order: (1) Requiring defendants Karen Vuu Phan and Christine Phan to comply with a July 2019 settlement agreement and a March 2020 order enforcing a settlement agreement concerning certain real property;1 (2) permitting Alan to immediately list the property for sale; (3) requiring Karen and Christine to cooperate to effectuate the sale; and (4) appointing a judicial referee for enforcement of the settlement agreement and March 2020 order. Christine, representing herself, appealed. Christine challenges the order on two grounds. First, she contends the trial court discriminated against her as a self-represented litigant by denying her the right to be heard. Second, Christine contends that Karen lacks mental competency and that, because Christine had declared a doubt as to Karen’s competency, the court should have deferred

1 Because they share a surname, we identify the parties by their first names for clarity, intending no disrespect.

hearing Alan’s motion until Karen underwent a competency evaluation under Penal Code section 1368. But Christine has not supplied a record substantiating either of her challenges. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND

The parties have supplied only a limited record for our review. Christine elected to prepare an appendix under California Rules of Court, rule 8.124 and to proceed without a record of any oral proceedings.2 Her appendix includes only two documents— the minute order entered after the trial court’s ultimate hearing on Alan’s motion and the written order granting the motion. She separately provided a copy of the superior court’s register of actions as of January 2023. Alan’s appendix adds only a minute order entered after an earlier hearing on the same motion.3 Alan initiated this action against Christine and Karen in 2016. The action involves the disposition of real property. During some stages of the proceedings, Christine and Karen were represented by counsel; at other times they were self-represented. At a mandatory settlement conference in July 2019, the parties reached a settlement agreement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.4 The parties stipulated to the entry of an order specifying that Alan currently owns an undivided 50 percent interest in a single-family home in Santa Clara County, while Christine and Karen each own an undivided 25 percent interest. The stipulated order specified terms by