Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
City & County of San Francisco Super. Ct. No. 444489
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING
Jones, P. J.
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on November 14, 2008, be modified as follows:
1. On page 10 of the opinion, add the following paragraph before section I:
“ ‘We review the trial court’s ruling, not its rationale; thus, we are not bound by the trial court’s stated reasons for granting summary judgment.’ ” (Michael v. Denbeste Transportation, Inc. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1091.) The Code of Civil Procedure requires that, if we affirm on a ground not relied upon by the trial court, we must “afford the parties an opportunity to present their views on the issue by submitting supplemental briefs.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (m)(2).) For the reasons stated below, we affirm on grounds not relied upon by the trial court. The parties addressed those grounds or had the opportunity to address them in their appellate briefs; they also addressed them in the trial court. Therefore, there is no need to afford them a further opportunity to address the issues in supplemental briefing. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (m)(2); Byars v. SCME Mortgage Bankers, Inc. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1134, 1147, fn. 2.)
2. On page 19 of the opinion, add the following paragraph after the first full paragraph, which begins “Defendant also argues the probate court entered an interlocutory order . . . .”:
Defendant also contends the probate court ruling on the motion to quiet title could not have been a final dispositive order because an evidentiary hearing on a section 850 petition must include a trial or a full evidentiary hearing. He cites Dixon v. Superior Court, but that decision simply holds that disputed factual issues must be resolved at a full evidentiary hearing. (Dixon v. Superior Court (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 758, 764.) Here, the court decided a legal issue: it determined that defendant failed to state a valid claim to title even assuming all of his factual allegations were true.
3. The first full paragraph on page 22 of the opinion shall be replaced with the following:
Further, we may take into consideration the probate court’s clear intent to issue a ruling on the merits that would “bring this to an end.” Although a court’s intention to make a decision a bar to future litigation is immaterial to our determination of the binding effect of the decision, a court’s intention to make a decision on the merits is material to our determination of that issue. (See Goddard, supra, 14 Cal.2d at p. 54.) Here, the court’s comment supports our conclusion that the ruling was on the merits and that it thus brought defendant’s title claim “to an end” insofar as the probate proceeding was concerned.
The modification does not change the Judgment. Respondent’s petition for rehearing is denied.
The opinion in the above-entitled matter filed on November 14, 2008, was not certified for publication in the official Reports. The request for publication is denied.