1DCA Division 4 Oral Argument - 2026/02/10 - Feb 10, 2026

argument

1DCA Division 4 Oral Argument - 2026/02/10

California First District Court of Appeal 41 min 8 chapters transcribed 7 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What procedural issues arose with the respondent’s brief filing?

Tracy L. Brown 0:01

Good morning. The California First District Court of Appeal Division 4 is now in session with the Honorable Tracy L. Brown presiding. With her on the bench are Justice John Streeter and Justice Jeremy Goldman. Okay. And good morning to everyone. We are going to begin today's calendar with the case of Tate versus Tate. And I don't think we have the right people Well, we have one person on the screen correctly. Is Jade Tate here?

Jade Tate 0:38

Yes,

Tracy L. Brown 0:39

good morning. Okay, so we cannot see Ms. Tate, but we can hear her. So let

Stephanie Finelli 0:47

me be,

Tracy L. Brown 0:47

oh, there's Ms. Tate. Okay, so let me begin. There are a couple of things, sort of logistical matters this morning. So we just learned this morning that Ms. Tate had attempted to file a respondent's brief. It appears that it was filed in the Superior Court rather than in our court. And this proof of service indicates that she attempted to serve Mr. Tate with this brief. It is a handful of pages, approximately eight or nine pages, I understand from communications between the clerks and counsel for the appellant that appellant's counsel has never seen this brief. Is that correct?

Stephanie Finelli 1:40

That is correct, Your Honor. This is the first I've heard of a brief.

Tracy L. Brown 1:43

And as I said, we just learned of it this morning. So what I'm going to do in this situation is the following. In the interest of moving the case forward and not simply continuing argument after an additional briefing. What we're going to do is we will have both sides argue. And after the case is argued, it will be submitted. Ms. Finelli, obviously you have not seen the brief. What we're going to do is the following. If the court believes that it needs a reply brief from appellant, we will vacate submission and give you time to file a reply brief. Okay? Understood. Thank you. If you do not hear from us, the case will remain submitted and we'll issue a decision. Okay. So with that intro, let me ask Ms. Finelli, how much of your 15 minutes do you wish to reserve

Stephanie Finelli 2:48

for your rebuttal? I would probably want to reserve six minutes then. Thank you. Okay.

Tracy L. Brown 2:54

I need to keep track on a separate device, so bear with me while I grab it.

Stephanie Finelli 2:59

And Your Honor, I'm pretty good at keeping track on my own, so I appreciate it, but I will do that.

Tracy L. Brown 3:05

Okay. Thank you. So I will do my best. So you're going to use about nine minutes at this point. Okay, and with that, you may proceed.

Stephanie Finelli 3:16

Thank you, Your Honor. May it please the court, my name is Stephanie Finelli, and I represent the appellant Marvin Tate. This case is fairly straightforward. Family Code Section 2550 specifically provides that community property must be divided equally, and the court has no authority or discretion to divide community property unequally. And in dividing community property, of course, the Superior Court can assign one asset, a community asset to one spouse, but then has to have some kind of equalization payment or offset to the other. That did not happen here. And it is undisputed that that did not happen here. The only real community assets of any value that were that were at issue in this trial were wife's pension and her 401k.

Stephanie Finelli 4:08

Wife admitted during the trial that the 401k was entirely commuted. Was

John Streeter 4:12

there any evidence in the record about the pension, which is mentioned in passing in your client's trial brief?

How does the court plan to handle the missing respondent brief?

Stephanie Finelli 4:23

Well, there was not any evidence presented at trial as to the value of the pension. I agree.

John Streeter 4:29

Well, the question is whether there is any evidence. Just to be clear, the trial record here consists of a reporter's transcript. Full stop. There are no documents. There is no expert report. There is some testimony. Your Honor, but there was an appendix provided by... Are there any documents in the exhibit in the appendix exhibits at trial?

Stephanie Finelli 5:02

There are several exhibits that were provided at trial. Yes, Your Honor.

John Streeter 5:08

Are they admitted in evidence?

Stephanie Finelli 5:11

I believe that they were. It was hard to tell from the record, Your Honor, whether they were actually admitted or not, or they were just looked at by the court.

John Streeter 5:18

Okay, so my question, you know, with that background, is what do we know about, quote, a pension?

Stephanie Finelli 5:26

Well, I believe that wife did admit that she had a pension.