Walton v. Frost CA1/3

Filed 2/25/15 Walton v. Frost CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

MICHAEL JOHN WALTON, Plaintiff and Appellant, A136510 v. JACK FROST, (Lake County Super. Ct. No. CV407601) Defendant and Respondent.

Plaintiff Michael John Walton appeals from an order denying his motion to vacate a judgment of nonsuit. Because we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Walton sued defendant Jack Frost in propria persona (pro. per.) for fraud and trespass based on allegations that Frost deposited substantial quantities of dirt onto Walton’s property in Clearlake. As set forth in the operative complaint, Walton alleged that Frost had asked for his permission in 2007 to dump dirt onto Walton’s property from an excavation on an adjacent lot. Frost allegedly told Walton that he would spread the dirt out. According to Walton, Frost dumped approximately thirty loads of dirt onto Walton’s property. The dirt purportedly contained substantial quantities of rock and was not spread out by Frost. Walton asserted that Frost falsely represented he would spread the dirt out and intended to deceive Walton by concealing the fact the excavated dirt contained rock. Walton alleged the value of his property was greatly diminished as a result of Frost’s acts.

1

The matter proceeded to trial before a jury in November 2011. After Walton rested his case as plaintiff, Frost moved for nonsuit. Frost argued that Walton lacked standing to sue because the subject property had been sold on August 21, 2009, approximately ten days before Walton initially filed suit. Frost relied on trial exhibits consisting of recorded deeds showing that Walton’s property, consisting of two adjoining lots, had been sold by Lake County for a total of $1,800 at a public auction. Frost also argued that the fraud claim failed as a matter of law because there was insufficient evidence to show that Walton had detrimentally relied on any representations made by him. In opposition to the motion for nonsuit, Walton asked the trial court to take judicial notice of a bankruptcy petition he filed on August 20, 2009, the day before the property was sold. He claimed the sale was void because the tax collector did not have authority to sell his property after he filed for bankruptcy. The trial court granted the nonsuit and dismissed the jury. With regard to the bankruptcy petition, the court noted that Walton’s bankruptcy presented issues that were collateral to the question of whether Walton was the owner of the property at the time he filed suit. In the court’s written order granting the motion for nonsuit, the court explained that it granted the motion both because Walton lacked standing to pursue a trespass claim and because Walton had not presented sufficient evidence in support of his fraud claim to establish the element of detrimental reliance. Following entry of judgment, Walton filed a motion for new trial. Among other things, he argued he had standing to sue as a property owner because the August 2009 sale of the property by Lake County was void as violative of the bankruptcy stay. He also contended he was entitled to pursue an action for damages even though he no longer owned the property. In addition, he argued that he had presented sufficient evidence supporting a cause of action for fraud based upon concealment. The court denied Walton’s motion for new trial. In the order denying the motion, the court noted that Walton had sought judicial notice of his bankruptcy petition at the time of trial. The court’s order states, in relevant part: “The court did not take judicial notice of such document because it could not ascertain the authenticity or extent of the nature or status