California Court of Appeal Sep 10, 2015 No. D066315Unpublished
Filed 9/10/15 Haslerig v. Dyson CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FARRIS HASLERIG et al., D066315
Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2012-00088478-CU-PN-CTL) PHILIP H. DYSON,
Defendant and Respondent.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Randa
Trapp, Judge. Affirmed.
Jerome John Schiefelbein, Law Offices of James E. Swingley and James E.
Swingley for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Pettit Kohn Ingrassia & Lutz, Douglas A. Pettit and Matthew Charles Smith for
present a cogent appellate argument with respect to the third challenge raised. We
therefore affirm the judgment.
II.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Appellants are descendants of George Haslerig, who won several million dollars in
the California State Lottery in 1991. Prior to his death in 2003, George established a
complex set of trusts and a limited partnership for the benefit of his family. Appellants
were intended beneficiaries of these various entities under George's estate plan. Upon
George's death, however, his sole surviving son, Garland, remained as the sole trustee of
the various trusts and the sole general partner of the limited partnership. Garland
thereafter controlled the lottery winnings and other assets that George had accumulated,
and refused to make distributions or accountings to appellants, despite their requests.
2
Appellants hired a series of attorneys who attempted to obtain information from
Garland and his attorneys regarding appellants' rights to George's estate. All of the
attorneys' efforts were rebuffed. Eventually, in 2006, Appellants hired Dyson to pursue
appellants' legal interests with respect to the estate, and entered into an hourly fee
agreement with him. Less than a year later, after having paid Dyson approximately
$6,000 in fees, appellants informed Dyson that they could no longer afford to pay him,
and they asked him to stop work.
Not long after this, Dyson began receiving documents from Garland's attorneys
regarding the estate. Dyson and Farris Haslerig discussed whether Dyson would be
willing to represent appellants on a contingency fee basis. After considering Dyson's
contingency fee proposal, appellants entered into a contingency fee agreement with
Dyson. In exchange for "consultation, review, research, and litigation services related to
various trusts of George Haslerig and the Estate of George Haslerig," appellants agreed
that Dyson would receive a fee equal to 40 percent "of all proceeds" recovered as a result
of his work.
With Dyson as their counsel, appellants filed suit against Garland and the limited
partnership. Dyson and appellants entered into a third fee agreement, which involved
essentially the same terms as the second fee agreement, but added two minors to the
group of plaintiffs, and provided more detailed information about the entities in George's
estate in which appellants were claiming an interest.
3
In 2008, after much litigation, and after appellants were successful in having
Garland removed as trustee, appellants and Garland reached a settlement of all claims.
The negotiated settlement provided appellants with more than half of the property that
was in dispute, including real property and cash payouts. Pursuant to Dyson's fee
agreement with appellants, Dyson spoke with appellants as to how he could be paid his
fee. Dyson and appellants agreed to form a limited liability company (the LLC) to hold
and manage the real properties that appellants received in the settlement.
At some point in 2010, appellants became unhappy with their arrangement with
Dyson and no longer wanted him to be part of the LLC. Farris Haslerig demanded
documents from Dyson. According to Dyson, he provided her with a "zip drive" that
contained an electronic copy of appellants' file.
Two years later, in 2012, appellants voted to remove Dyson as manager of the
LLC. Appellants apparently filed this lawsuit against Dyson in December 2012, and filed
a first amended complaint in June 2013.1 According to appellants, they asserted five
causes of action: negligence (legal malpractice), fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent
concealment, breach of fiduciary duty, and conversion.
The case proceeded to trial before a jury in April 2014. The jury returned a
verdict in favor of Dyson on all of appellants' claims. The trial court entered judgment on
the verdict on May 7, 2014. On May 22, appellants filed a document entitled "Combined
1 Neither the complaint nor the first amended complaint was designated as part of the record on appeal. We therefore take these facts from the appellants' and respondent's briefs. 4
Notice of Motions for NOV and Notice of Intent to File Motions for New Trial." The
record does not disclose whether, and if so, when, appellants filed supporting memoranda
or declarations with respect to the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or the
motion for new trial and supporting documents.
The trial court denied appellants' posttrial motions, stating:
"Plaintiffs' MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL is DENIED.
"Defendant's objections to the jurors' declarations concerning communications from other jurors and the thought processes of other jurors are sustained.
"The court finds no irregularity in the proceedings of the jury or adverse party. [Citations.] The weight of the evidence is not contrary to the findings of the jury and damages are not inadequate given the jury's verdict.
"Plaintiffs' MOTON FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT is DENIED.
"The Motion is not timely. [Citations.]
"Moreover, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the party securing the verdict, there is substantial evidence to support the verdict. [Citation.]"
Appellants filed a timely notice of appeal.
On appeal, appellants filed an opening brief, but did not file a reply brief in
response to Dyson's respondent's brief.
5
III.
DISCUSSION
Appellants raise three broad contentions of error: (1) that the trial court erred in
denying their motion for new trial; (2) that the trial court erred in denying their motion
for judgment notwithstanding the verdict; and (3) that the "verdict is contrary to the
evidence."2
We are unable to address appellants' contentions because they have failed to
provide an adequate record on appeal, and/or have failed to properly identify any
appellate issue for review.
A. The motion for new trial
Appellants first contend that the trial court "err[ed] in denying Plaintiffs' motion
for new trial." They assert five main grounds on which they claim the trial court should
have granted them a new trial. These grounds include (1) insufficiency of the evidence to
justify the verdict with regard to the negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claims; (2)
the trial court "allowing irregularities in the [c]onduct of [o]pposing [c]ounsel over the
2 Appellants' entire argument with respect to the third "issue" on appeal consists of the following two sentences:
"Appellants incorporate by reference as though set forth in full herein and for all purposes, each of its arguments made under Points of Error Nos. 1 and 2, in support of its contention that the verdict rendered by the jury is simply contrary to the evidence adduced at trial. A proper application of Rule 3-300 and 4-200 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct require[s] that the verdict be reversed and that this matter be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with an appropriate application of said rules." 6
objection" of Appellants' counsel; (3) "[i]rregularities in the manner in which the jury
misapplied or otherwise failed to follow the law"; (4) "[i]rregularities in the [p]roceedings
of the jury"; and (5) "[i]nsufficiency of the [d]amages [a]warded by the [j]ury."
"[W]e review an order denying a new trial motion under the abuse of discretion
standard," but "in doing so, we must review the entire record to determine independently
whether there were grounds for granting the motion." (Santillan v. Roman Catholic
Bishop of Fresno (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 708, 733.) Appellants have failed to provide
the court with the entire record of the relevant proceedings in the trial court. As a result,
the record on appeal is insufficient to permit us to assess whether appellants' contentions
regarding the propriety of the trial court's denial of their new trial motion have merit.
In addition to the duty to set forth, discuss, and analyze all of the evidence, it is the
burden of an appellant to produce an adequate record on appeal that demonstrates that the
trial court erred. (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574-575; Baker v. Children's
Hospital Medical Center (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1057, 1060.) "The [appellant] must
affirmatively show error by an adequate record. [Citations.] Error is never presumed. It
is incumbent on the [appellant] to make it affirmatively appear that error was committed
by the trial court. [Citations.] . . . 'A judgment or order of the lower court is presumed
correct. All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to
which the record is silent . . . .' " (Rossiter v. Benoit (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 706, 712.) In
the absence of a proper record on appeal, the judgment is presumed correct and must be
affirmed. (Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295-1296.)
7
Appellants have failed to meet their burden on appeal by failing to provide a
sufficient record to permit this court to adequately review the errors that they assert.
Appellants set forth multiple contentions of error on the part of the trial court with respect
to the court's denial of their motion for new trial and motion for judgment
notwithstanding the verdict, but they did not include in the record on appeal any of the
briefs or supporting documents related to those motions, including the memorandum of
points and authorities in support of the motion, their reply, declarations, or any other
documents that the parties may have submitted to the trial court in connection with the
motion. Although appellants included a document titled "Combined Notice of Motions
for NOV and Notice of Intent to File Motions for New Trial," this document does not
include any legal argument or analysis in support of the motions.3
The significance of the supporting papers to this court's ability to address the
appellant's contentions cannot be overstated. As noted, an order denying a motion for
new trial is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. However, "[a] trial court may not be
held to have abused its discretion as to a particular issue which it was never asked to
consider." (Martin v. U-Haul Co. of Fresno (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 396, 407.)
Our inability to review the papers that were before the trial court when it ruled on
appellants' new trial motion precludes us from being able to properly review the basis for
3 The "Combined Notice of Motions for NOV and Notice of Intent to File Motions for New Trial" does provide a very basic summary of potential arguments the appellants apparently planned to set forth, however, it does not actually set forth any legal argument or application of the law to what occurred in this case. 8
the trial court's ruling. Appellants have, therefore, failed to carry their burden of
establishing prejudicial error in the trial court's ruling. (See Hernandez v. California
Hospital Medical Center (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 498, 502 (Hernandez).)
B. Appellants' challenge to the trial court's denial of their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict
Appellants next contend that the trial court erred in failing to grant "a judgment
NOV" in their favor. Specifically, appellants contend that they were entitled to judgment
in their favor: (1) on their negligence claim "because Respondent Dyson admitted in his
sworn testimony to facts which constitute actionable professional negligence" (i.e., his
purported failure to obtain court approval of minor's compromise for minors Karissa and
Kendall Haslerig Furlough, who were both under the age of 10 at the time of the
settlement); (2) as to their breach of fiduciary duty cause of action because "Respondent
Dyson admitted that he had his existing clients sign two contingent fee agreements and a
settlement agreement that, on their face, are detrimental to the legal and financial interest
of his then-existing clients without first complying with Rule 3-300 of the California
Rules of Professional Conduct"; (3) as to the breach of fiduciary duty cause of action
because Dyson "admitted" that he had his clients sign an operating agreement for the
LLC "by submitting for their signatures a document that purported to be a Rule 3-300
disclosure form, but which in fact failed to comply with Rule 3-300 and was thus legally
ineffectual"; (4) as to the breach of fiduciary duty cause of action because Dyson charged
an excessive and unconscionable fee in violation of Rule 4-200 of the California Rules of
9
Professional Conduct; (5) as to the fraudulent misrepresentation cause of action "because
the evidence established fraudulent misrepresentation as a matter of law"; (6) as to the
fraudulent concealment cause of action "because the evidence established fraudulent
concealment as a matter of law"; and (7) as to the conversion cause of action "because the
evidence established conversion as a matter of law."
The record with respect to this aspect of appellants' appellate argument suffers
from the same infirmity as their challenge to the trial court's denial of their motion for
new trial, i.e., the papers that appellants presumably filed in support of their motion for
judgment notwithstanding the verdict are not contained in the record on appeal. It is,
essentially, impossible for this court to review the correctness of a trial court's ruling on a
motion when we do not have a full record of the arguments and documents that were
presented to the trial court.
The trial court denied appellants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict
on multiple grounds, one of which was that the motion was untimely.4 With respect to
motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and motions for new trial, although
they are often filed concurrently, different procedural time constraints apply to these two
motions. (See Wegner, Fairbank, Epstein & Chernow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Trials
& Evidence (The Rutter Group 2013) ¶ 18:37.2 ["Supporting papers on a new trial
motion may be served and filed within 10 days after the notice of intent to move for new
4 The trial court also provided an alternative basis for denying the motion—i.e., that there was substantial evidence to support the verdict. 10
trial [citations]. [¶] . . . CAUTION: This 10-day extension for filing and service of
supporting papers does not apply to JNOV motions. [¶] Therefore, in the usual case
where motions for JNOV and for new trial are filed together, the entire JNOV motion
(notice of motion, declarations and points and authorities) must be served and
filed . . . along with the usual single-page notice of intent to move for new trial!"].)
Given that the record on appeal does not include the supporting papers for appellants'
motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, appellants have not met their burden of
demonstrating that the trial court erred in concluding that the motion was untimely. We
must therefore presume that the trial court's ruling was correct. (See, e.g., Hernandez,
supra, 78 Cal.App.4th at p. 502.)
C. Appellant's "Point of Error No. 3"
The third main topic heading identified in the appellants' brief is "Point of Error
No. 3." Again, appellants' entire "argument" on this point consists of the following two
sentences:
"Appellants incorporate by reference as though set forth in full herein and for all purposes, each of its arguments made under Points of Error Nos. 1 and 2, in support of its contention that the verdict rendered by the jury is simply contrary to the evidence adduced at trial. A proper application of Rule 3-300 and 4-200 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct require that the verdict be reversed and that this matter be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with an appropriate application of said rules."
It appears that appellants are attempting to make an argument such as would be
made on a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, as opposed to an appellate
11
argument. California Rules of Court rule 8.204, sets out certain requirements for
appellate briefs submitted by a party. Rule 8.204(a)(1)(B) provides that each brief must
"[s]tate each point under a separate heading or subheading summarizing the point, and
support each point by argument and, if possible, by citation of authority." (Italics added.)
The heading here, "Point of Error No. 3," clearly does not indicate the nature of the
question being presented or the point being made, and the supporting argument
essentially consists of arguments "incorporate[d] by reference" from other portions of the
brief—arguments in which appellants attempted to challenge the trial court's rulings on
motions for which appellants' supporting papers were not provided on appeal. Issue "No.
3" raised by appellants thus fails to meet the basic requirements for appellate briefing.
Although we might otherwise presume that appellants were attempting to
challenge the sufficiency of the evidence with respect to certain of the jury's
determinations, the standards of review that appellants cite in their brief on appeal
indicate that such a presumption would not be correct. In setting forth the applicable
standards of review on appeal, the appellants offer three possible standards. First, they
state that "[t]he denial of a motion for new trial is usually reviewed under an abuse of
discretion standard." Next, appellants offer that "[o]n appeal, an order granting or
denying a motion for judgment JNOV [sic] is reviewed under varying standards of
review, as follows: (a) in the care of a purely legal issue, the JNOV ruling is reviewed de
novo; (b) if the issue being considered relates to the sufficiency of the evidence, the
substantial evidence rule applies; and (c) if the issue being reviewed is based upon
12
undisputed evidence, it becomes a purely legal issue, and is reviewed de novo." (Italics
omitted.) Finally, the appellants state, "In construing statutes and ordinances at issue in
either the JNOV motion or the new trial motion, the Court is not limited to . . . the trial
court's interpretation of the statute or the evidence presented in the trial court." We
provide these standards, as set forth by the appellants, to demonstrate that the issues that
the appellants raise in their briefing on appeal relate solely to the propriety of the trial
court's denial of their motion for new trial and their motion for judgment notwithstanding
the verdict, and clearly are not direct challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting the judgment.
As we have previously recounted, it is a fundamental rule of appellate review that
a judgment or order from which an appeal is taken is presumed correct, and " ' "all
intendments and presumptions are indulged in favor of its correctness." ' " (State Farm
Fire & Casualty Co. v. Pietak (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 600, 610.) It is therefore incumbent
upon appellants to provide argument and legal authority to support their contentions on
appeal. This burden requires more than simply asserting that the judgment or order is
wrong; it requires setting forth the particular issues being raised by the party, as well as
the presentation of legal argument, including the applicable standard of review, related to
that party's contentions. "Issues do not have a life of their own: if they are not raised or
supported by argument or citation to authority, [they are] . . . waived." (Jones v. Superior
Court (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 92, 99.) It is not the appellate court's role to construct
13
theories or arguments that would undermine the judgment and defeat the presumption of
correctness.
Given the state of the record and the state of appellants' briefing, we conclude that
there is no basis on which it would be appropriate to reverse the verdicts of the jury or the
resulting judgment of the trial court.
IV.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
AARON, J.
WE CONCUR:
McINTYRE, Acting P. J.
O'ROURKE, J.
14
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the judgment because the appellants failed to provide an adequate record to review the trial court's denial of their post-trial motions and failed to present a cogent appellate argument.
Issues
Did the trial court err in denying the motion for a new trial?
Did the trial court err in denying the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict?
Is the jury verdict contrary to the evidence?
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“We conclude that appellants have forfeited two of their appellate contentions because they have failed to present a sufficient appellate record to enable this court to review the challenged rulings.”
“In the absence of a proper record on appeal, the judgment is presumed correct and must be affirmed.”