Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Alameda County Super. Ct. Nos. RG08407132, RG08408792)
Jones, P.J.
Bessie Marie Sholes appeals from an adverse judgment in a real property dispute. She contends the judgment must be reversed because (1) the trial court violated her Sixth Amendment rights, (2) the court failed to explain how it had decided her complaint, and (3) the court was biased against her. We will reject these arguments and affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
It has been difficult to ascertain the underlying facts because both parties have largely ignored their obligation to support statements of fact in their briefs with citations to the record. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C).) As best as we can determine, Tyla, Inc., and its principal Kelly Engineer (hereafter collectively Tyla) owned two parcels of real property in Oakland; one at 8801 International Boulevard, and a second at 867 37th Street. In June 2006, Tyla sold the International Boulevard property to Sholes. Approximately $75,000 in tax liens had been placed against the property and Tyla promised to pay off those liens. Tyla supported its promise by executing a $75,000 note in favor of Sholes supported by a deed of trust on the 37th Street property. For reasons that have been left unexplained, the deed of trust was not recorded until September 2006.
Meanwhile in July 2006, respondent RMD Services, I, LLC (hereafter RMD) purchased the 37th Street property from Tyla. RMD did not know Tyla had given a deed of trust to Sholes because that instrument had not yet been recorded.
RMD learned about the deed of trust in late 2007 or early 2008 and it demanded that Tyla and Sholes remove it. Tyla paid the tax liens on the 37th Street property and asked Sholes to reconvey the deed of trust, but Sholes would not cooperate.
RMD responded by filing the complaint that is at issue in the present appeal. Naming Tyla and Sholes as defendants, RMD sought to quiet its title and sought damages that were caused by the deed of trust. Sholes also filed a complaint against Tyla alleging she had been defrauded.
The complaints were consolidated and a court trial was conducted in October 2009. After hearing the evidence presented, the court ruled in favor of RMD. It quieted RMD’s title to the 37th Street property and awarded RMD $332,881.50 in damages against Tyla and Sholes. The court then rejected Sholes’s fraud complaint and ruled she was not entitled to any damages.
II. DISCUSSION
Sholes raises three issues on appeal. First, she argues the trial court violated her Sixth Amendment rights because it did not use its power to compel the presence of a witness who had failed to appear at trial. We reject this argument for two reasons. First, appellant never raised this argument in the court below. Therefore, she has forfeited the right to raise it on appeal. (Doers v. Golden Gate Bridge Etc. Dist. (1979) 23 Cal.3d 180, 184-185, fn. 1.) Second and more importantly, the Sixth Amendment, by its terms, applies only in criminal cases. (Cf. People v. Allen (2008) 44 Cal.4th 843, 860.)
As is relevant here, the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution states, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right... to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor....”
Second, Sholes contends the trial court erred because it did not explain why it had rejected her complaint seeking damages for fraud. Appellant has not cited any authority to support her argument on this issue. She has forfeited the right to raise it on appeal. (Badie v. Bank of America (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 779, 784-785.) Furthermore, we see nothing in the record that indicates appellant asked the court to issue a statement of decision. Absent such a request, the court was not required to explain the factual or legal conclusions that supported its decision. (Code Civ. Proc., § 632 [“In superior courts, upon the trial of a question of fact by the court, written findings of fact and conclusions of law shall not be required.”])
Third, appellant contends the trial court was biased against her. Appellant did not raise this issue in the court below. She has forfeited the right to raise it on appeal. (Roth v. Parker (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 542, 548.) Furthermore, we have reviewed the record on appeal and find no evidence of judicial bias. Indeed, the record shows the judge who presided over this trial treated all of the parties with fairness and respect. There was no error on this ground.
In sum, we find no ground for reversal.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Needham, J., Bruiniers, J.