Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
Super. Ct. No. CV258035
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING
DAWSON, J.
THE COURT:
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on September 3, 2008, be modified as follows:
1. On page 6, the following paragraph is added to footnote 5:
We have recited the foregoing appraisal prices to set forth Transferees’ argument as it was presented to this court. We have not made any implied finding of fact based on these figures or otherwise relied on the appraisals referred to by Transferees in reaching our decision.
2. On page 17, the second full paragraph, beginning “We choose to” is deleted and the following paragraph inserted in its place:
We choose to exercise that discretion and consider the issue because doing so will promote judicial efficiency. For example, our resolution of this issue will spare the court system further proceedings or a new lawsuit by Transferees collaterally attacking the validity of the judgment.
3. On page 19, immediately after the second full paragraph, insert the following paragraph:
Bonfield’s petition for rehearing contends that this court’s decision to modify the judgment has deprived her of the ability to seek a valid judgment based on the allegations of the complaint. Bonfield argues that our decision “effectively rewards [Transferees] for their fraudulent conduct, and unfairly and unjustly deprives [her] of the right to seek compensation for the damages inflicted upon her.” This court has not deprived Bonfield of the opportunity to seek a valid judgment. She had that opportunity and chose not to take it. Now, she claims entitlement to a second bite at the apple. Her claim was supported by no citation to authority and by no argument as to why public policy is served by a result that would encourage litigants to overreach when seeking default judgments. We regard our decision not to give Bonfield a second chance as equal in justice to our decision not to give Salak a second chance to prove that Bonfield committed perjury in her testimony in the Salak action. In each instance, the party was given a fair opportunity and chose a course of action. We are not inclined to relieve them of the consequences of their choice when that relief exceeds what this court is required by law to provide and means the expenditure of further judicial resources in the trial court.
There is no change in the judgment.
Respondent Bonfield’s petition for rehearing is denied. To the extent that the petition could be interpreted to include an implied request to augment the record with 234 pages of documents presented as exhibits to the petition for rehearing, the request to augment the record is denied.
Appellant Transferees’ petition for rehearing is denied. Appellant Transferees’ request to submit an answer to respondent Bonfield’s petition for rehearing is denied.
WE CONCUR: CORNELL, Acting P.J., KANE, J.