Ryckman v. Drexler

1

GERALD OWEN RYCKMAN et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. DAVID DREXLER et al., Defendants and Respondents.

B319664

California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division

April 28, 2023

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 21STCV22674, Malcolm Mackey, Judge. Affirmed.

Gerald Owen Ryckman and Judith Lorraine Ryckman, in pro. per., for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Schwimer Weinstein, Mitchell E. Rosensweig and Michael E Schwimer for Defendants and Respondents.

WEINGART, J.

This appeal arises out of a series of legal disputes that began with a disagreement concerning the ownership of an office building. In November 2015, respondents David Drexler and Laura Drexler (as trustees of the Drexler Trust dated June 24, 1994) sued appellants Gerald Owen Ryckman and Judith Lorraine Ryckman (as trustees of the Ryckman Trust dated October 10, 1990) for partition of the real estate in Los Angeles County Superior Court case No. LC103510 (the partition action). During the partition action, the court imposed evidentiary sanctions on the Ryckmans for non-compliance with discovery obligations.

On June 17, 2021, the Ryckmans (individually and as trustees of the Ryckman Trust) filed a complaint against the Drexlers (individually and as trustees of the Drexler Trust), the Law Offices of David Drexler, and Michael Schwimer, who was the attorney representing the Drexlers in the partition action (collectively, Defendants).^[1] The sole relief the Ryckmans sought in this new action (the secondary action) was that the trial court "not consider or enforce" the evidentiary sanctions orders entered in the pending partition action because the orders were allegedly obtained through fraud and void.

Defendants filed special motions to strike the complaint in the secondary action pursuant to the anti-SLAPP provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16.^[2] Within days of filing their oppositions to the special motions to strike, the Ryckmans voluntarily dismissed the secondary action. Defendants thereafter moved for attorney fees and costs as prevailing defendants under section 425.16, subdivision (c). The Ryckmans did not oppose the fee motions, nor did they appear at the hearing on the motions. The trial court granted fees and costs to the Drexlers and Schwimer in the amounts of $29,727.55 and $21,601.30, respectively. It thereafter entered judgment stating Defendants' special motions to strike were meritorious, awarding $29,727.55 to the Drexlers and $21,601.30 to Schwimer, and concluding that the Ryckmans were to take nothing on their complaint against Defendants.

The Ryckmans now appeal, contending their voluntary dismissal of the secondary action deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to enter a judgment awarding attorney fees and costs. They further argue the trial court erred in awarding fees and costs to Defendants because it failed to first rule on the special motions to strike.

We affirm. A trial court retains jurisdiction following a dismissal to rule on motions for attorney fees and costs, and the Ryckmans have demonstrated no error in the trial court's ruling awarding fees. It is well established that we presume the correctness of the trial court's orders, including that the trial court knew and applied the correct standard, and that it is appellants' burden to overcome this presumption on appeal. The Ryckmans have not done so on the record before us, and did not adduce below any evidence demonstrating the sanctions orders were obtained through fraud or were void or demonstrating any reversible error in the award of fees and costs.

BACKGROUND

A. Factual Summary

On November 2, 2015, the Drexlers, as trustees of the Drexler Trust, filed a verified complaint against the Ryckmans, as trustees of the Ryckman Trust, for partition and recovery of monies relating to an office building for which each of the two trusts were on title.^[3] On March 14, 2016, the Ryckmans crosscomplained.

On April 28, 2017, the trial court, Judge Frank J. Johnson presiding, granted the Drexlers evidentiary sanctions against the Ryckmans for the Ryckmans' failure to provide satisfactory, court-ordered discovery responses to certain interrogatories. The trial court's minute order provided, "The [c]ourt notes that [the Ryckmans] were previously . . . ordered to provide further responses to [s]pecial [i]nterrogatories 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 20, 21, 23 and 24. It appears that the response[s] produced pursuant to the order were the same as previously produced but without objections. The interrogatories ask for facts. [The Ryckmans] maintain[ ] that they have no[ ] supporting facts and all supporting material is with the [Drexlers]. [¶] The [o]pposition is odd in that [the Ryckmans'] assertion that all facts are with the [Drexlers] implies that [the Ryckmans] have no facts or evidence to support their position. [¶] The [c]ourt hears further argument. The [c]ourt tries to impress upon the [Ryckmans] that the [Drexlers] will not prove their case for them. [The Ryckmans] still insist that they have no recollection or records to support their position. However, if there are no facts the proper response is to document efforts to comply and why compliance is not possible. [The Ryckmans] did not do this and are technically in violation of the discovery order. [The Ryckmans] must provide facts to support their position, not allegations. [¶] The [c]ourt will not award terminating sanctions, but will grant what amount to evidentiary sanctions. As to the 11 special interrogatories, [the Ryckmans] are bound by the responses provided. Practically, this means that, at least as to the 11 special interrogatories above, that [the Ryckmans] are bound by the position that they have no evidence or supporting facts. [The Ryckmans] will not be permitted to 'find' evidence for trial at a later date. [¶] Counsel for the moving party is to prepare and submit an[ ] order for the [c]ourt's signature." The record does not include a transcript of the April 28, 2017 hearing.

On May 25 and 26, 2017, the trial court executed and entered the sanctions orders prepared by the Drexlers. The orders prohibited the Ryckmans from introducing evidence at trial beyond what was stated in their deficient discovery responses, including evidence that the Ryckmans were "owed or entitled to any rents or profits produced by the [p]roperty" (the rents and profits provision).

Nearly two years later, on March 22, 2019, the Ryckmans filed a motion in the partition action to strike the rents and profits provision of the sanctions orders. The Ryckmans claimed the trial court's minute order following the April 28, 2017 hearing did not state they could not present evidence of rents or profits due to them, that none of the 11 interrogatories related to the Ryckmans' entitlement to rents and profits, and that Schwimer improperly "slipped in" reference to such rents or profits into the sanctions orders.

On April 16, 2019, Judge Johnson issued a minute order observing the trial court "fully considered the arguments of all parties, both written and oral, as well as the evidence presented," and denied the Ryckmans' motion to strike. A transcript of this hearing is not included in the record.

On or about September 24, 2019, the Ryckmans filed a motion in the partition action to "vacate" the sanctions orders. The Ryckmans argued the sanctions orders were "forged," obtained by extrinsic fraud, and void. They argued, "A simple side by side comparison of the [c]ourt's [m]inute [o]rder (Exhibit[ ]A) and the [o]rder forged by Schwimer (Exhibit[ ]B) is all that is required to determine the invalidity of Schwimer's forged order." They concluded, "Schwimer committed[ ] multiple felonies, by forging into the [sanctions o]rders, at the very, very end, the following 14 words[,] 'or is owed or entitled to any rents or profits produced by the [p]roperty[.']" (Italics and bold omitted.)

On October 18, 2019, the trial court, Judge Shirley K. Watkins presiding, issued a written ruling denying the Ryckmans' motion. The trial court found, inter alia, that the Ryckmans "failed to establish that the [sanctions o]rders are void on [their] face." The trial court also observed, "While it is true that those specific words do not appear in the minutes, the purpose of having the court sign an order is to state with specificity what the court orders. It is common that not every single statement made by the court does not appear in the minutes of the court." The trial court further observed that Judge Johnson had an opportunity to strike the offending language if it did not accurately reflect his intent when the Ryckmans brought their March 22, 2019 motion to strike, and Judge Johnson declined to do so.

On August 14, 2019, the Drexlers filed a motion in limine in the partition action to exclude evidence at trial pursuant to the sanctions orders, which the parties referred to as amended motion in limine No. 8.

On June 18, 2021, the trial court granted the Drexlers' amended motion in limine No. 8. It found "the May 25, 2017 and May 26, 2017 orders are valid and will be enforced. This [c]ourt has looked at the court records and the orders were signed and entered properly and they remain in effect. They are valid court orders and there does not appear to be any impropriety by counsel."

On September 17, 2021, the trial court entered judgment on the Drexlers' cause of action for partition in their favor. It also entered judgment against the Ryckmans on their cross claim for partition. At the time the Ryckmans filed the record in the instant appeal, the parties were scheduled to begin a jury trial on the remaining causes of action on ...