Townes v. Bledsoe CA3

Filed 9/25/25 Townes v. Bledsoe CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

PEARLIE TOWNES, C101738

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. STKCVURP20210009710) v.

DONNELL BLEDSOE, SR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

In an action for partition by sale of real property in Stockton, defendant Donnell Bledsoe, Sr., has filed two notices of appeal. In the first, he appeals from the trial court’s July 26, 2024 order confirming the sale of the property. In the second, he challenges a tentative ruling overruling his demurrer, issued on September 5, 2024. We affirm the July 2024 order because Bledsoe has failed to provide an adequate record supporting his claims. We further conclude that his challenge to the September 2024 tentative ruling is not cognizable in this appeal.

1

BACKGROUND In October 2021, plaintiff Pearlie Townes filed a verified complaint against Bledsoe alleging claims for partition of real property located in Stockton, unjust enrichment, contribution, and an accounting. In October 2022, the trial court entered an interlocutory judgment for partition by sale of the property. In December 2023, Bledsoe filed a demurrer to the October 2021 complaint, arguing, among other things, that Townes’s complaint was not properly served. On July 26, 2024, the trial court held a hearing on the confirmation of the sale of the property. Bledsoe moved to dismiss the order confirming the sale, asserting that he did not receive proper notice. According to a minute order in the record, the matter was argued and submitted. After reviewing the record of actions, the court found that notice was proper and denied Bledsoe’s motion to dismiss. Bledsoe asked the court to continue the hearing until after a scheduled September 2024 hearing on his demurrer. The court found no grounds to continue the matter. That same day, the court filed an order confirming the sale. Bledsoe filed an appeal from the order. On September 5, 2024, the trial court held a hearing on Bledsoe’s demurrer and a case management conference. According to a minute order in the record, the court provided a copy of its tentative ruling on the demurrer to Bledsoe, who had not yet seen it. Bledsoe requested oral argument. The court continued oral argument to October 10, 2024. On September 5, 2024, Bledsoe filed a notice of appeal stating that he was appealing from a judgment or order entered on September 5, 2024. According to a subsequent minute order, on October 10, 2024, the date set for oral argument on Bledsoe’s demurrer, the court determined that the case was on appeal and continued the matter for a status conference in February 2025. DISCUSSION Bledsoe contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the confirmation of partition sale because Townes failed to serve him with the interlocutory