Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Karnazes CA1/5

Filed 9/16/14 Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Karnazes CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Plaintiff, A138999 v. ELIZABETH KARNAZES, (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. CIV461610) Defendant and Appellant; BRIAN CARTER, Claimant and Respondent.

Appellant Elizabeth Karnazes (Karnazes), in propria persona, appeals from the trial court’s orders on costs. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 In March 2007, Farmers Insurance Exchange filed an interpleader action to have the court determine the proper distribution of a $75,001 settlement in a lawsuit between its insureds and David Melchner and Underground Lounge (collectively, Melchner). The $75,001 to be paid to Melchner was allegedly the subject of liens filed by Melchner’s previous attorneys, including Karnazes and the law firm of Anderlini, Finkelstein, Emerick and Smoot (AFES). Farmers Insurance Exchange was discharged from the action in February 2008.

1 Portions of this factual background are taken from this court’s decision in a previous appeal. (Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Melchner (Sept. 27, 2010, A125556) [nonpub. opn.].)

1

In April 2007, respondent Brian Carter, doing business as Discovery Judgment Recovery (DJR), filed a “Notice of Lien” in the interpleader action. The lien was based on a money judgment entered in another case. According to the Notice of Lien, DJR was the judgment creditor and Melchner was the judgment debtor in the other case. In December 2010, DJR intervened in the present action. In April 2012, after the close of trial, the trial court granted a motion for entry of judgment against Karnazes under section 631.8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the only remaining parties—DJR and AFES—reached a settlement. The interpled funds would be divided equally between the two parties “[a]nd each side [will] bear their own costs and attorneys fees.” On July 22, 2012, judgment was entered on DJR’s complaint in intervention in favor of DJR and AFES, and against Karnazes. On October 29, 2012, DJR filed a memorandum of costs; a copy was sent to Karnazes. In February 2013, Karnazes moved to correct the trial court’s judgment and for leave to file a motion to tax costs. The court denied the motion to correct the judgment, which apparently related to Karnazes’s claim that she was not liable for costs due to the settlement reached by DJR and AFES. The court granted Karnazes leave to file an apparently untimely motion to tax costs. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(b)(1).)2 In March 2013, Karnazes filed her motion to tax costs, and DJR filed an opposition. On May 31, the trial court denied the motion to tax costs. This appeal followed.3 DISCUSSION At the outset, we emphasize the well-established principle that in addressing an appeal, we begin with the presumption that the judgment or order of the trial court is correct. (In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133.) Karnazes, as the