4DCA Division 3 Oral Argument - 2026/07/21 - Jul 21, 2026

argument

4DCA Division 3 Oral Argument - 2026/07/21

California Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Three 3h 28m 6 chapters transcribed 1 month ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What procedural instructions are given to the parties at the beginning of the hearing?

Unknown 8:55

Got you. Sorry, good morning. So still I'm part of yesterday. Uh a few things before we get started today. Just a reminder, if you haven't been here, if you have been here, this is the respondent side, this is the appellant side. Uh when you approach the podium, do your best to speak into the microphone as the proceedings are being recorded and it just makes it easier for the justices to hear you. Uh let's see. This little switch right here moves it up and down. So feel free to move it to your desired height. Water is provided at a council table for you if you find that you are thirsty uh prior to coming up. There is a drinking fountain just near the restroom to the right from where you entered in. Uh, should be getting started in about ten minutes.

Unknown 16:20

Um and then the next thing which is But I heard. We found some of them. It's important, you're right. This was Melville versus Abdell Saddam. And I'm on the way back, so I can explain to it. Is Joshua here? Joshua Edmonds.

Unknown 20:23

All right. Court of Appeal, Fourth Appell District Division Three is now in session. Yeah.

Justice Motuike 20:35

Good morning everyone. Welcome. I am Justice Motuike. To my right is uh Justice Servino and to my left is Judge Schwarm. We have uh few matters today. Uh on calendar. And uh we are going to take Now I'm a little bit out of order. And then we'll take a brief recess for a panel change. So First matter, uh Deborah Sandford. Versus Mark Sanford?

John Dodd 21:18

Your Honors John Dodd for Pallant, uh Barks and

Justice Motuike 21:22

It was Michael Sanford, uh Property Powell. Good morning. Uh Mr. Dodd, I assume you're going first. Yes. Council may all be seated, but um except for Mr. Dodd. Mr. Dodd, uh you reserve seven and a half minutes. Do you wish to reserve any of that time for rebuttal? Sure,

John Dodd 21:39

you're all right, say two minutes. Certainly. Um So basically uh I don't want to repeat the briefs too much, but the this trusty de son port. uh doctrine is not supported by substantial evidence because first the parents and then all the siblings agreed and requested Mark to manage the property. So he had their authority, so the doctrine is legally irrelevant. Also, it does not nullify the statute of limitations in any of it. England specifically notes a statute of limitations may apply. And it looks to whether or not a defendant quote unquote repudiated the trust. In this case that's irrelevant because all the siblings were trustees in two thousand of nine. There is no question about repudiation, saying you're not in charge, you're in charge as of two thousand and nine.

John Dodd 22:29

That was a triggering event, so the doctrine is irrelevant on that ground as well. And the trial court found as a fact. that the statute ran on may twenty ninth, two thousand nine. So that's a pre of the event. Um the other global problem of this with this case is that there's no general equitable exception to the statute of limitations. Equity follows the law, as a Marita Tenants Association and uh Robin case demonstrate. And the response that the court merely was enforcing the equalization clause is also flawed. First, the equalization clause refers to loans and unequal gifts. Mark was not assessed for loans or gifts. Petitioners claim he did not account for rent expenses and the refinancing proceeds.

John Dodd 23:17

That was that was the basis of the complaint at pages thirty seven seventeen and thirty seven twenty two, and that was also the basis of the court's finding. It's also contrary to the Schaefer case, which has been adopted by our Supreme Court. that the statute of limitations applies to an attempt to collect a debt. Uh all these were not debts. I mean they're not uh Um Uh loans, Lakeview was refinancing proceeds, Wilkin was management fees and sales proceeds, Center was rent, Quincy was rent, and Orange Park was rent. So then the other I I find particularly egregious part of this case is that there's neither a factual nor a legal basis to assess Mark for the gross amount of the rents. He it was undisputed.

John Dodd 24:07

He collected the rents, he paid the mortgages, he made the maintenance. There is no reason to assess him a gross amount rather than a net amount.