4DCA Division 2 Oral Argument 2026/03/03 Afternoon Session - Mar 03, 2026

argument

4DCA Division 2 Oral Argument 2026/03/03 Afternoon Session

California Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two 59 min 8 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 opening remarks and introductions set the stage for the afternoon session?

Unknown 0:09

Mm-hmm.

Unknown 1:02

Okay, that's again that publicly seven.

Alan Nesbitt 9:02

All right.

Unknown 9:11

Thank you. Please receive that.

Unknown 9:21

Situation. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Uh this is the only panel that will be appearing on this afternoon's uh calendar. Uh I would like to introduce uh the justice that'll be uh uh involved in the case. On my right is uh Justice Doug Miller. Good afternoon. And on my left uh Justice Carol Codrington. Good afternoon. And my name is Justice McKinster and I'll be uh presiding over the three cases that we have uh this afternoon. My voice is uh I've been talking with my staff all through lunch. I'm losing my voice, but I so I apologize for voice quality. The uh first matter matter for our consideration is uh number eight on the panel. It's the case of John uh Moromarco versus Edward uh Noakowski. And if we could have the parties uh come forward on that please.

Unknown 10:20

All right. And you're Mr. Noakowski, I

Noakowski 10:22

am I am you on the

Unknown 10:23

air. Okay, am I pronouncing that correctly? Yes, you are, sir. Thank you. And a appearing for a respondent. Common spelling. Sure. First name is spelled A R E Z O O R Zoo. Last name Jamshidi J A M S H I D I. Thank you, Miss Jamsheedy. I I had that right. Thank you. I appreciate the help w with pronunciation. Why don't you have a seat? We're we're gonna ask Mr Noakowski, you have fifteen minutes, uh did you wish to preserve some part of your time to respond?

Noakowski 11:02

Uh I I would reserve perhaps three minutes to respond.

Unknown 11:06

Okay, you'll get an audible warning at three. We have a light system. When you see the yellow light come on, you have absolutely two minutes left, whether it's your first argument or your second. So we'll be happy to hear what you have to say, Mr. Noah Kalsi. Go ahead and take the podium.

Noakowski 11:19

Thank you. Ma may it please the court. Good afternoon, Justices. Um my my appeal in this matter uh uh originally contained three uh th three elements. There was the the appeal of the uh uh probate code 859 fine, there was an uh an appeal of the additional uh interest that was l levied by the trial court. And then there was an appeal as to the attorney fees. Uh since since I requested this oral argument, I've I've decided that with respect to the uh interest and the attorney's fees, that the that that I I accept the the court's judgment on that. Right. And uh so I I will be waiving my oral argument on that.

Unknown 12:07

All right, and the interest was going your way, so Okay. Go ahead uh go ahead, Bid Mr. I I appreciate the roadmap, Mr. Noakowski. Go ahead.

Noakowski 12:17

Okay, with with respect to the uh to the uh probate code fine, uh Your Honor, I uh uh Your Honors I I understand that there is that there is no present case which uh which which actually reduces the amount of a probate code eight fifty nine uh judgment. Um but I I also understand that that there's never been a case presented to any court where that issue has been uh ha ha has been pro properly put before the court. So uh I I I think in that case we need to look at uh the the uh uh the decisions of other courts in similar circumstances and so forth. And the the one the one that I would like to touch base with the court first of all is the uh Hale ha Hale versus uh Morgan. Morgan decision.

Unknown 13:08

Wh which

Noakowski 13:08

Unknown 13:08

discuss in the opinion.

Noakowski 13:10

Yes, that is that is correct. Uh There there were The the uh the the court distinguished that case from from uh from my case here uh on the basis that as I recall the the uh the the jeopardy that the that the party was was was put under was un unlimited. There was a there was a daily fine that was being proposed and so forth, and which the court found was not the case here. Uh I would uh uh I would ask the court to to reconsider that because based upon the fact that uh during the trial of my matter, uh I made a I made a record in the court that if if I had uh a four hundred thousand dollar fine levied against me together with the other the other uh uh amounts for the for the uh attorney's fees and the interest and so forth, that there was no way that I that I could pay that.

Noakowski 14:03

In fact there was no way based upon the value of my home and the equity of in my home and so forth that even if even if my my home was sold in an execution sale, that the that the that the that the amount would not be sufficient in order to satisfy the judgment.