Opinion
D070310
02-08-2018
SAMUEL C. CRAIG, JR., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. FRANCISCO CARDONA et al., Defendants and Respondents.
Samuel C. Craig, Jr., in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. No appearance for Defendants and Respondents.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2015-00010184-CU-MC-CTL) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Joel M. Pressman, Judge. Affirmed. Samuel C. Craig, Jr., in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. No appearance for Defendants and Respondents.
INTRODUCTION
Following a bench trial, the court dismissed Samuel Craig, Jr.'s action in which he challenged the validity of his deceased father's will. The court found the action is barred by the statute of limitations because the will was properly probated more than 20 years earlier. Craig appeals contending the court erred in its findings because there is no established statute of limitation for the tort of intentional interference with expected inheritance and because Craig claims he did not discover the defendants' fraudulent actions until April 2014, less than a year before his action was filed. Craig failed to request a statement of decision and, therefore, we must imply the trial court made the necessary findings to support the judgment. Thus, we affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
Craig sued the estate of his father's widow and other individuals for intentional interference with expected inheritance and constructive trust contending the holographic will submitted to probate by his father's widow was fraudulent and the defendants intentionally used an incorrect address for Craig so he was not given proper notice of the probate proceedings. He alleged he did not discover the fraud until he reviewed the probate file in 2014.
In their answers, the defendants asserted the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense. Following a bench trial, the court found the statute of limitations expired for Craig's action and found in favor of all the defendants.
At Craig's request, the court prepared a settled statement setting forth the procedural background of the case and identifying the witnesses and evidence presented at the bench trial. The court summarized its findings, stating: "the [c]ourt found that the statute of limitations has expired and ruled in favor of defendants. Plaintiff claims that the will that was probated 24 years ago was fraudulent. Defendants established that the will and probate of deceased, Samuel C. Craig, Sr., was properly executed 24 years ago and that the probate was properly heard before San Diego Superior Court. The [s]tatute of [l]imitations bans a challenge to the will and probate after a 20[-]year delay. Case was dismissed."
DISCUSSION
First, Craig's opening brief presents a factual background statement with no citations to the record. This is in violation of rule 8.204(a)(1)(C) of the California Rules of Court, which requires a party to support each reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the record. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246 [statements in appellate briefs not supported by citations to the record are improper and cannot be considered].)
Further rule references are to the California Rules of Court. --------
Second, "a party challenging a judgment [or order] has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record.' [Citation.] ' "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 ... ." ' [Citation.] A proper record includes a reporter's transcript or a settled statement of any hearing leading to the order being challenged on appeal." (Elena S. v. Kroutik (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 570, 574.)
Although Craig obtained a settled statement, he did not request a statement of decision. " 'Under the doctrine of "implied findings," when parties waive a statement of decision expressly or by not requesting one in a timely manner, appellate courts reviewing the appealed judgment must presume the trial court made all factual findings necessary to support the judgment for which there is substantial evidence.' [Citations.] A party who does not request a statement of decision may not argue the trial court failed to make any finding required to support its decision." (In re Marriage of McHugh (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1248.)
"[T]he use of a settled statement in lieu of a reporter's transcript does not negate the doctrine of implied findings where the parties waived a statement of decision." (A.G. v. C.S. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1282.) "As a 'condensed narrative of the oral proceedings,' a settled statement does not guarantee the reviewing court has before it the factual and legal basis for the trial court's determination" as a statement of decision provides. (Id. at p. 1283.)
Therefore, whether the statute of limitations is three years for an action on the ground of fraud or mistake (Code Civ. Proc., § 338, subd. (d)), or two years for an action based on intentional interference (Code Civ. Proc., § 339, subd. (1); see Wiseman & Reese, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial Claims & Defenses (The Rutter Group 2017) ¶ 3:470), we are bound by the court's implied factual findings that the applicable statute of limitations accrued and expired before Craig filed his action.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Because Respondents did not file a brief in this court, we do not award costs on appeal. (See In re Marriage of Fregoso & Hernandez (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 698, 704.)
MCCONNELL, P. J. WE CONCUR: BENKE, J. IRION, J.