GMAC Mortgage v. Sandoval CA4/2 (2014) · DecisionDepot
GMAC Mortgage v. Sandoval CA4/2
California Court of Appeal Apr 9, 2014 No. E059111Unpublished
Filed 4/8/14 GMAC Mortgage v. Sandoval CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
GMAC MORTGAGE et al.,
Plaintiffs and Respondents, E059111
v. (Super.Ct.No. CIVRS1202418)
VENTURA SANDOVAL et al., OPINION
Defendants and Appellants.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Thomas S. Garza,
Judge. Reversed with directions.
Moises A. Aviles for Defendants and Appellants.
Stephen B. Ensberg and Law Offices of Stephen B. Ensberg for Plaintiffs and
Respondents.
Plaintiff and respondent GMAC Mortgage, LLC (GMAC), formerly known as
GMAC Mortgage Corporation doing business as Ditech.com, in the capacity of the trust
deed beneficiary; and plaintiff and respondent Executive Trustee Services, LLC
(Executive) formerly known as Executive Trustee Services, Inc., as the trustee on the
1
trust deed, (plaintiffs)1 won a summary judgment (1) cancelling a recorded substitution of
trustee and a recorded full reconveyance of the trust deed and (2) declaring the trust deed
to be “valid and enforceable as a first position priority security interest” on the real
property owned by defendants and appellants Ventura and Catalina Sandoval
(defendants). Plaintiffs were also awarded attorney fees as prevailing parties under the
trust deed of $21, 284.25 in a postjudgment order filed April 29, 2013. Defendants
appealed only from the postjudgment order awarding attorney fees.
After the filing of the record, the parties filed a stipulation to vacate only the
attorney fees order, a memorandum of points and authorities, and a declaration. The
parties also stipulate to vacation of the attorney fees award by an order of this court
followed by a dismissal of the appeal “without costs to either party.” The parties make
clear that the summary judgment in plaintiffs’ favor is to remain in full force and effect.
Plaintiffs’ motivation in generously relinquishing the attorney fees award is variously but
consistently stated as the desire “to bring this matter to a conclusion” and “to resolve as
many matters as possible without further litigation expenses or costs.” This opinion
1 The court’s docket treats the two plaintiffs/respondents as one party when GMAC and Executive are actually two separate plaintiffs and respondents represented by the same counsel. The clerk of this court is directed to change the docket title and party entries accordingly.
2
justifies and orders the reversal of attorney fees order pursuant to the stipulation under the
second sentence of Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a) (§ 128 (a)(8)).
The Character of This Stipulated Reversal
To accomplish the parties’ objectives as expressed in the motion within the limits
of appellate procedure, we will resolve the appeal by treating the stipulation as one for
the reversal of the judgment—not for dismissal of the appeal. The reasons for this
construction are of a procedural character. We cannot both dismiss an appeal and make
an order or disposition implementing the parties’ stipulation. A dismissal in any court
terminates the court’s jurisdiction to make any further order, and the effect of a dismissal
of an appeal is to affirm the judgment or order appealed. (See Paul v. Milk Depots, Inc.
Having discussed the character of the proposed stipulated reversal, we reach the
critical issue. Do we have the authority to dispose of this case by a stipulated reversal of
this character? We find that we do.
By enacting section 128 (a)(8), the Legislature clarified the criteria for
implementing a stipulated reversal requiring the appellate court to make two findings:
(1) that no reasonable possibility exists of adversely affecting the interests of nonparties
or the public (§ 128 (a)(8)(A)) and (2) that the parties’ reasons for requesting reversal
outweigh (a) the erosion of public trust that may result from reversing the judgment and
(b) the reduced incentive to settle pretrial that may result from the availability of
postjudgment stipulated reversal (§ 128 (a)(8)(B)).2 The second finding involves two
factors, resulting in a discussion of three factors in the making of the two findings: (1)
nonparty adverse effect; (2) public trust erosion; and (3) pretrial settlement incentive.
As to the first finding and factor regarding the effect on nonparties’ and the
public’s interests, the lawsuit solely affects its parties because of its private character.
We find no reasonable possibility exists that the proposed stipulated reversal would
adversely affect the interests of nonparties or the public. (§ 128 (a)(8)(A).)
2 Section 128(a)(8) provides in full: “An appellate court shall not reverse or vacate a duly entered judgment upon an agreement or stipulation of the parties unless the court finds both of the following: [¶] (A) There is no reasonable possibility that the interests of nonparties or the public will be adversely affected by the reversal. [¶] (B) The reasons of the parties for requesting reversal outweigh the erosion of public trust that may result from the nullification of a judgment and the risk that the availability of stipulated reversal will reduce the incentive for pretrial settlement.”
4
The first step in making the second, two-part finding requires identification of the
parties’ reasons for stipulating to reverse the judgment. (§ 128 (a)(8)(B).) As related
above, the parties simply wish to end the litigation between them based on the
unchallenged judgment in favor of plaintiffs and without requiring defendants to pay
plaintiffs’ attorney fees. Thus, the motivations for a stipulated reversal in this case
appear honorable and efficiently conserve both the parties’ and the judiciary’s limited
resources.
We next weigh these reasons against the possibility that the stipulated reversal
would erode the public’s trust in the judiciary. (§ 128 (a)(8)(B).) We find that there is no
possibility of the erosion of public trust in this case because the judgment itself remains
intact, and the reversal of the attorney fees award implies no error on the part of the
superior court.
We find that the stipulated reversal will not erode public trust in the judiciary, and
that the parties’ reasons for agreeing to a stipulated reversal outweigh the nonexistent
erosion of public trust. (§ 128 (a)(8)(B).)
The third and final factor for consideration, and the second part of the second
finding required by section 128 (a)(8), is the extent to which the availability of a
postjudgment stipulated reversal reduced the incentive in this case to a pretrial settlement,
which factor is also to be weighed against the parties’ reasons for stipulating to the
reversal. However, in this case the appeal is from a postjudgment award of attorney fees,
the parties already tacitly agreeing to allow the judgment to remain in effect. This
5
stipulated reversal could have no possible effect on pretrial settlement. We find that the
parties’ reasons for stipulating to this reversal outweigh the nonexistent disincentive to
pretrial settlement of a stipulated reversal. (§ 128 (a)(8)(B).)
Disposition
Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, the order awarding attorney fees filed
April 29, 2013, is reversed. This reversal of the judgment does not indicate a ruling on
the merits of the judgment, but serves only to vacate the judgment. Also pursuant to the
stipulation and in the interests of justice, the parties shall bear their own costs on appeal
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(5)), and the clerk of this court is directed to issue the
remittitur immediately (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.272(c)(1)).
RAMIREZ P. J.
We concur:
McKINSTER J.
RICHLI J.
6
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court granted the parties' request for a stipulated reversal of a postjudgment attorney fees order, finding that the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8) were satisfied.
Issues
Does the appellate court have the authority to reverse a postjudgment order based on a party stipulation?
Do the parties' reasons for requesting reversal outweigh the potential erosion of public trust and impact on pretrial settlement incentives under section 128(a)(8)?
Disposition. reversed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“We find that the stipulated reversal will not erode public trust in the judiciary, and that the parties’ reasons for agreeing to a stipulated reversal outweigh the nonexistent erosion of public trust.”
“Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, the order awarding attorney fees filed April 29, 2013, is reversed.”