Quality First Home Improvement v. Williams CA3

Filed 2/21/23 Quality First Home Improvement v. Williams CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

QUALITY FIRST HOME IMPROVEMENT, INC., C095316

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 34-2018- 00241333-CU-BC-GDS) v.

DASHENA WILLIAMS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Respondent Quality First Home Improvement, Inc. (QFHI) filed suit against appellant Dashena Williams, seeking to recover the balance owed on a home improvement contract. The trial court entered judgment in favor of QFHI following a court trial. On appeal, appellant argues the trial court erred in denying her oral request to continue the trial. Appellant contends we may presume the trial court abused its discretion because the record does not show it considered the factors affecting a motion to continue trial. Appellant further avers the trial court failed to consider whether she

1

qualified for referral under the Sargent Shriver Civil Counsel Act, Government Code section 68650 et seq.1 (Shriver Act). We affirm the trial court’s judgment and deny QFHI’s request for sanctions. BACKGROUND Appellant contracted with QFHI to install a concrete deck and patio cover at her residence for $35,000. QFHI completed the project, but appellant paid only $1,000. After failed efforts to collect payment, QFHI recorded a mechanic’s lien 2 against appellant’s home. It also sued appellant for breach of contract and sought to foreclose the mechanic’s lien. Appellant appeared in propria persona at the court trial. Both appellant and QFHI allege in their briefs that appellant orally requested a continuance in order to obtain counsel, which the trial court denied. The record does not contain appellant’s continuance request or the trial court’s ruling on the request. But we treat QFHI’s allegations as factual admissions because, while briefs are outside the record, they are reliable indications of a party’s position on the facts, and we may use statements therein as admissions against a party. (Mangini v. Aerojet-General Corp. (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 1125, 1152; Moore v. Powell (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 583, 586, fn. 2 [“A factual statement in a brief may be treated as an admission or stipulation when adverse to the party making it.”].) At trial, appellant claimed QFHI’s work was substandard, and she had an oral agreement with QFHI to reduce the contract price to $17,000. The trial court ruled for QFHI on both causes of action. Appellant timely appealed.