Seuell v. Hansen CA3

California Court of Appeal Oct 14, 2014 No. C073878Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the appellant failed to provide an adequate record to support his claims of error and that the judgment is presumed correct on a judgment roll appeal.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in its findings regarding breach of contract and the denial of the appellant's claims for monetary recovery.
Whether the appellant demonstrated judicial bias or a violation of due process rights.
Whether the appellant met the burden of providing an adequate record for appellate review.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“When an appeal is “on the judgment roll,” we must conclusively presume evidence was presented that is sufficient to support the court’s findings.”

“It is the burden of the party challenging a judgment to provide an adequate record to assess claims of error.”

“Our review of the record before us reveals no error, and accordingly, we affirm the judgment.”

Filed 10/14/14 Seuell v. Hansen CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Placer) ----

MICHELLE SEUELL, C073878

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SCV30311)

DANIEL HANSEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Plaintiff Michelle Seuell met defendant Daniel Hansen in 2011 on a dating Web site. A variety of money issues arose between them, culminating in a court trial. The trial court found for Seuell in the amount of $17,965 plus costs and ordered that a race car in her possession be returned to Hansen. The court denied Hansen any monetary recovery. Hansen, proceeding in propria persona, appeals, challenging the judgment. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND At the outset we note that the record before us does not contain a reporter’s transcript of the court trial. Necessarily we rely on the clerk’s transcript of the proceedings.1 Hansen filed an action against Seuell in small claims court to recover a “2002 Ellis Modified racecar #88” valued at $12,000 and a Craftsman toolbox and tools valued at $1,000. Subsequently, Seuell filed a complaint against Hansen for breach of contract, money had and received, and money lent. Hansen’s small claims action was consolidated with Seuell’s complaint. In her complaint, Seuell alleges the following: Hansen requested that she lend him money, and over two months Seuell lent Hansen over $25,000. Hansen orally agreed to repay the money. Hansen also offered to purchase various vehicles and other items that could be sold later by Seuell for a profit. At Hansen’s request, Seuell agreed to rent a storage facility in which to store and repair the vehicles. Although Hansen agreed to pay the deposit and monthly rental fee, he failed to reimburse Seuell. Seuell attached two written documents to her complaint. In the first, Hansen stated he owed her $18,765, which would be paid within 90 days. In the second, Hansen stated he owed her an additional $9,800, which would also be paid within 90 days. Both documents are dated May 9, 2011, and are signed by Hansen. According to Seuell’s complaint, these documents constitute a contract between the parties that Hansen breached by failing to reimburse her the sums listed. Hansen repaid her $2,000. Seuell claimed $29,365 in damages. In its decision, the trial court found Seuell proved her claims by a preponderance of the evidence, and found her testimony at trial credible. The court also considered the

Seuell v. Hansen CA3

AI Brief

MICHELLE SEUELL, C073878

DANIEL HANSEN,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

RAYE , P. J.

BUTZ , J.

MAURO , J.

AI Brief