Munoz v. Lopez (Sept. 29, 2025)

Case details
Full caption
California. September v. SANDRA LEVINE LOPEZ
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
California (CA)
Court
California Supreme Court
Decided
Sept. 29, 2025
Disposition
Affirmed
Majority
Opinion Fain (J.) (unanimous Court)
© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.EVA C. MUNOZ, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SANDRA LEVINELOPEZ, et al., Defendants and Appellants.Court of Appeal, Fifth District, California. | September 29, 2025 | Not Reported in Cal.Rptr. | 2025WL 2754164Document DetailsKeyCite:KeyCite Red Flag Unpublished/noncitablestandard Citation:EVA C. MUNOZ, Plaintiff & Respondent, v. SANDRA LEVINELOPEZ, et al., Defendants & Appellants. Additional Party Names:Oscar Lopez, No. F087929, 2025 WL 2754164 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 29,2025)All Citations:Not Reported in Cal.Rptr., 2025 WL 2754164Search DetailsSearch Query:adv: (openai "artificial intelligence" chatgpt "google gemini" "westlawcocounsel" "large language model") (hallucinat! fake fictitious spuriousnonexistent "non-existent" "made up" imagined /p (gpt ai "artificialintelligence" chatgpt chaton perplexity openai copilot "google gemini""google bard" grok "mata v. avianca" claude llm llms)) (hallucinat! fakefictitious spurious nonexistent "non-existent" "made up" imagined) +3(precedent case "legal authority" "legal case") & DATE(aft 1/1/2023)Jurisdiction:CaliforniaDelivery DetailsDate:October 2, 2025 at 3:38 AMDelivered By:Client ID:NOCLIENTIDOutlineAttorneys and LawFirms (p.1)OPINION (p.1)All Citations (p.5)
EVA C. MUNOZ, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SANDRA..., Not Reported in... © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.1KeyCite Red Flag Unpublished/noncitable2025 WL 2754164Not Officially Published(Cal. Rules of Court, Rules8.1105 and 8.1110, 8.1115)Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115, restrictscitation of unpublished opinions in California courts.NOT TO BE PUBLISHED INTHE OFFICIAL REPORTSCalifornia Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a),prohibits courts and parties from citingor relying on opinions not certified forpublication or ordered published, exceptas specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinionhas not been certified for publication orordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.Court of Appeal, Fifth District, California.EVA C. MUNOZ,Plaintiff and Respondent,v.SANDRA LEVINE LOPEZ, etal., Defendants and Appellants.F087929|Filed 09/29/2025(Super. Ct. No. CV-22-001453)APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court ofStanislaus County. Sonny S. Sandhu, Judge.Attorneys and Law FirmsSandra Levine Lopez and Oscar Escobedo Lopez, inpropria persona, for Defendants and Appellants.Ogden Law Firm and Mark J. Condon for Plaintiff andRespondent.OPINIONFAIN, J.**1 Defendants/appellants Sandra and Oscar Lopez(the Lopezes), appearing in propria persona, appealfrom the trial court's post-judgment order grantingattorney fees to plaintiff/respondent Eva Munoz. Weaffirm.BACKGROUNDThe Lopezes challenge the trial court's post-judgmentorder granting attorney fees to plaintiff, Eva Munoz.We note at the outset that the record on appeal isincomplete. It lacks not only the parties' pleadingsbelow, but also the filings underlying the contestedattorney fee order. Nor do the Lopezes provide, intheir briefing, a comprehensive factual and proceduralsummary of the proceedings below.The record reflects that a short bench trial took place onMunoz's substantive claims which the trial court's post-trial ruling addressed and resolved. Given the gaps inthe record, we will delineate the factual and proceduralbackground of this matter based on the information inthe trial court's ruling.Munoz filed this action on April 4, 2022. She wasrepresented by counsel, while the Lopezes were self-represented. Trial took place over October 3 andOctober 4, 2023. The trial court issued its post-trialruling on January 19, 2024.The parties' dispute concerned the Lopezes' residencein Riverbank (Riverbank property or the property).Munoz claimed she shared ownership of the propertywith the Lopezes in a joint tenancy. Munoz's complaintasserted five causes of action against the Lopezes:partition, ouster, breach of fiduciary duty, unjustenrichment, and declaratory relief. The trial court ruledin Munoz's favor on the causes of action for partitionand ouster.With respect to Munoz's cause of action for partitionof the Riverbank property, the trial court foundthat she owned a one-third interest in the propertyand was entitled to judicial partition. The courtinitially ordered partition by “physical division,” but
EVA C. MUNOZ, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SANDRA..., Not Reported in... © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2reserved jurisdiction to order alternative remediesshould “physical division” prove to be unattainable.The court ordered that, as to this claim, judgment beentered in favor of Munoz.Next, with respect to Munoz's cause of action forouster, the trial court observed: “The Court ... findsthat from December 7, 2021 to present, Plaintiffwas effectively deprived of physical occupancy andpossession despite [Defendants'] actual or constructiveknowledge of Plaintiff's demand, and that theDefendants' rejection of this demand was actuallyor constructively communicated to Plaintiff prior tothe inception of this action.” The court added: “Withappropriate credits and offsets substantiated by theevidence and testimony at trial, the Court finds thereasonable and fair market economic value of the lossof physical occupancy and possession by Plaintiff forthe period of partial ouster is $24,306.79.” The courtconcluded: “The Court awards Plaintiff $24,306.79 [indamages].” The court ordered that, as to this claim,judgment be entered in favor of Munoz.Thereafter, Munoz filed a motion for attorney fees andcosts. As noted, neither the motion, nor any opposition,are in the record on appeal. On April 2, 2024, thecourt issued a tentative ruling granting Munoz's motionfor attorney fees and costs. Neither party requestedoral argument on the court's tentative ruling. On April3, 2024, the trial court held a hearing to confirm itstentative ruling on Munoz's motion for attorney feesand costs. No testimony or argument was provided,nor was any objection raised, by either party at thehearing.1 The court thus adopted its tentative ruling asits final ruling.*2 The Lopezes filed a notice of appeal on April 22,2024. The notice of appeal specified that the Lopezeswould appeal the trial court's April 3, 2024, orderon Munoz's motion for attorney fees.2 The partiesdid not request a court reporter in the trial court;thus, reporter's transcripts are not available for anyproceeding that occurred below. The Lopezes obtainedsettled statements from the trial court for purposes ofappeal; however, the settled statements do not containany evidentiary summaries.3TRIAL COURT'S RULING ON MUNOZ'SMOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEESAs mentioned, the trial court granted Munoz's motionfor attorney fees and costs. The court's ruling stated:“The court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to the awardof reasonable attorney's fees and costs. (Nicholas v.Taft (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1233.)The Court further finds this case was not particularlycomplex and did not warrant an undue amount oftime investment by Counsel. (Ketchum v. Moses(2001) 24 Cal.4th 1222, 1133.) The Court thereforeawards Plaintiff attorney's fees of $84,535.00 andcosts of $3,336.27.The Court also finds that regardless of Defendants'opposition to said partition, [they] may beconsidered as benefitting from said partition. (Stutzv. Davis (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 1; Orien v. Lutz(2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 957; Riley v. Turpin (1960)53 Cal.2d 598.)Accordingly said fees shall be apportionedaccording to the parties' interests in said propertywith one-third of said attorney fees amountingto $28,178.33 apportioned to Plaintiff, and two-thirds of said fees amounting to $56,356.66apportioned to Defendants. Similarly, one-third ofsaid costs amounting to $1,112.09 are apportionedto Plaintiff and two-thirds amounting to $[2,224.18]are apportioned to Defendants. (Code of CivilProcedure § 874.040.)”DISCUSSIONI. Lopezes Have Forfeited Their Challenge to TrialCourt Attorney Fee RulingA. The Parties' ArgumentsThe Lopezes' opening brief initially states: “Theorder being appealed is a final judgment from theCalifornia Superior Court that mandated the saleof the co-owned property located [in] Riverbank.[4]This judgment imposed significant financial burdenson Defendants Sandra Lopez and Oscar E. Lopez[,]
EVA C. MUNOZ, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SANDRA..., Not Reported in... © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3including substantial inequitable allocation of attorneyfees and costs.”*3 In the extremely short “Argument” section oftheir opening brief, the Lopezes contend: “The primaryissue is whether it is equitable and just to imposeattorney fees and costs on Defendants, particularlygiven their status as self-represented parties andtheir ongoing bankruptcy proceedings. The questionis whether such imposition aligns with bankruptcyprotections, principles of fairness, and reasonablenessof the fees claimed by Plaintiff.” The Lopezes add:“Plaintiff, who incurred attorney fees by choice, shouldnot be permitted to shift the financial burden ontoDefendants, who were merely defending their rights.The record lacks any factual basis to justify theimposition of such fees.”As for Munoz, her responsive brief states: “Appellants'arguments suffer from numerous critical defects,including: (1) reliance on non-existent legal authoritiesand misrepresentations of statutory law; (2) a failureto include the necessary record on appeal; (3) alack of citations to the record and references todocuments outside the established record; (4) anattempt to conflate the trial court's judgment aftertrial with a later apportionment of attorney's fees;and (5) a lack of substantive legal argument. Forthese reasons, the Court should affirm the trial court'sorder.” Munoz adds: “The [trial court's] ruling ispresumed correct, and it is Appellants' burden toaffirmatively demonstrate error with legal analysisand citations to evidence in the record supportingany factual assertions. (Equilon Enterprises LLC v.Board of Equalization (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 865,881; Bullock v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2008) 159Cal.App.4th 655, 685.)”Building on her argument, Munoz points out thatthe Lopezes' “contentions are bereft of factualunderpinning, record references, argument, and/orauthority.” Munoz further notes: “It is the burden of theparty challenging the fee award on appeal to provide anadequate record to assess error. [Citations.] [¶] Here,Appellants have designated a record that omits the verymoving papers that formed the basis for the trial court'sruling on the apportionment of attorney's fees. Withoutthese documents, the Appellants have failed to meettheir burden, and their appeal must be denied.”Munoz continues: “Appellants' brief contains a singlereference to the record in relation to the apportionmentof attorney's fees. This is insufficient to meet theirburden.” Munoz adds: “Compounding this failure,Appellants improperly introduce new evidence thatwas never presented in the trial court. As a generalrule, documents not before the trial court cannot beincluded as part of the record on appeal and thusmust be disregarded as beyond the scope of appellatereview.”5Munoz states: “Appellants cite eleven cases in theirbrief, of which seven do not exist. Courts have noobligation to consider legal authority that is fictitiousor misleading.” (Fn. omitted.) She adds: “As a resultof Appellants' reliance on wholly manufactured caselaw throughout their brief the court should disregardall references to the fictitious cases and any argumentsrelated to them. Further the Appellants should besanctioned[.]”Munoz further notes: “To the extent Appellants makeany substantive legal argument regarding the trialcourt's attorneys' fees apportionment, their argument isshallow and conclusory, lacking meaningful analysisor supporting authority. A brief that merely assertserror without reasoned argument does not meet theburden of persuasion on appeal. (See People v. Stanley(1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 793 [‘Appellate courts are notrequired to make an argument for the appellant.’].)”B. Analysis*4 “Code of Civil Procedure section 874.040[6]provides that ‘the court shall apportion the costs ofpartition among the parties in proportion to theirinterests or make such other apportionment as may beequitable.’ These costs include ‘[r]easonable attorney'sfees incurred or paid by a party for the commonbenefit.’ (§ 874.010, subd. (a).) We review the trialcourt's orders regarding attorney fees for abuse ofdiscretion, and its ‘decision will only be disturbedwhen there is no substantial evidence to supportthe trial court's findings or when there has been amiscarriage of justice.’ ” (Orien v. Lutz (2017) 16Cal.App.5th 957, 966, fn. omitted.)
EVA C. MUNOZ, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SANDRA..., Not Reported in... © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.4It is axiomatic that when challenging a ruling onappeal, the appellant must demonstrate he raised arelevant objection in the trial court. (See, e.g., In re S.C.(2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 406 [“In order to preservean issue for appeal, a party ordinarily must raise theobjection in the trial court.”].) On appeal, the party“must cite to the record showing exactly where theobjection was made. [Citations.] When an appellant'sbrief makes no reference to the pages of the recordwhere a point can be found, an appellate court neednot search through the record in an effort to discoverthe point purportedly made. [Citations.] We can simplydeem the contention to lack foundation and, thus, to beforfeited.” (Id. at pp. 406-407.)Here, the Lopezes have not shown that the argumentsraised on appeal were presented to the trial court beforethe matter was submitted for decision or that theymade a relevant objection to the court's tentative ruling.(See, Quiles v. Parent (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 1000,1013 [“ ‘Failure to raise specific challenges in thetrial court forfeits the claim on appeal.’ ”]; PortervilleCitizens for Responsible Hillside Development v.City of Porterville (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 885, 912“[[W]hen a trial court announces a tentative decision, aparty who failed to bring any deficiencies or omissionstherein to the trial court's attention forfeits the right toraise such defects or omissions on appeal.”].)Although, the record discloses that on April 22, 2024,the Lopezes filed a request for reconsideration ofthe trial court's April 3, 2024, ruling on Munoz'smotion for attorney fees, the Lopezes' briefing doesnot reference this request, let alone establish it wasprocedurally proper and timely made. Furthermore,the trial court's resolution of this request does notappear in the record on appeal. (See Duarte v. ChinoCommunity Hospital (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 849, 856[contention of error forfeited by failure to provideadequate citations to the record].)Accordingly, we conclude the Lopezes have forfeitedtheir challenge to the trial court's April 3, 2024, rulingon Munoz's motion for attorney fees.Moreover, even assuming the issues were properlyraised below, the Lopezes have not met their burden todemonstrate reversible error by supplying cogent legalargument supported by legal analysis and citationsto the record. (See, e.g., In re S.C., supra, 138Cal.App.4th at p. 408 [“[I]t is appellant's burden toaffirmatively show error. [Citation.] To demonstrateerror, appellant must present meaningful legal analysissupported by citations to authority and citations to factsin the record that support the claim of error.”]; accordCity of Santa Maria v. Adam (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th266, 286-287.) The Lopezes' briefs contain merelyconclusory assertions and are devoid of properlydeveloped legal arguments based on supporting legalauthorities and citations to the record. (See Cahill v.San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th939, 956 [“ ‘Appellate briefs must provide argumentand legal authority for the positions taken. “When anappellant fails to raise a point, or asserts it but failsto support it with reasoned argument and citations toauthority, we treat the point as waived.” ’ ”].)*5 “Perhaps the most fundamental rule of appellatelaw is that the judgment challenged on appeal ispresumed correct, and it is the appellant's burden toaffirmatively demonstrate error.” (People v. Sanghera(2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1567, 1573.) “The very settledrule of appellate review is a trial court's order/judgmentis presumed to be correct, error is never presumed, andthe appealing party must affirmatively demonstrateerror on the face of the record.” (People v. Davis (1996)50 Cal.App.4th 168, 172.)Given the conclusory nature of their arguments, theLopezes have not met their burden on appeal. Rather,we conclude the Lopezes have forfeited their challengeto the trial court's order on Munoz's motion for attorneyfees. In light of our conclusion, we need not addressMunoz's request for the imposition of sanctions on theLopezes.DISPOSITIONThe trial court's order is affirmed. Munoz is awardedher costs on appeal.WE CONCUR:DETJEN, Acting P. J.PEÑA, J.
EVA C. MUNOZ, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SANDRA..., Not Reported in... © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.5All CitationsNot Reported in Cal.Rptr., 2025 WL 2754164Footnotes*Judge of the Fresno Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of theCalifornia Constitution.1The settled statement for the hearing reflects that Munoz did not appear at the hearing and that it was“unclear” whether the Lopezes were present.2The Lopezes' opposition to Munoz's motion for attorney fees was attached to the notice of appeal. However,it was not included in the record on appeal.3The trial court certified a total of two settled statements (they are identical). The court observed thereinthat the Lopezes' notice of appeal clarified that their appeal concerned the court's order on Munoz's motionfor attorney fees and costs. The court noted that no argument or testimony was provided at the hearingon Munoz's motion for attorney fees and costs. Accordingly, the settled statements do not summarize anytestimony or provide a factual summary of oral proceedings at the hearing.The settled statements certified by the trial court each state: “The proposed amended statement does notcontain material required by the Rules of Court. Specifically, Rule 8.137(d)(2)(A) states the narrative mustinclude a concise factual summary of the evidence and testimony of each witness relevant to the points ofappeal. The Notice of Appeal filed on behalf of the appellants on April 22, 2024, states the order that is beingappealed is the order on April 4, 2024, for the Attorney Fees/Costs motion. The proposed statement mustbe limited to testimony and evidence from this hearing only.”4A judgment mandating the sale of the co-owned property does not appear in the record on appeal and theLopezes have not provided a record cite for such a judgment.5Munoz is referring to documents appended to the Lopezes' opening brief. The documents contain extra-record emails between Munoz's counsel and Sandra Lopez dating to early 2025.6Undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.End of Document© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S.Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access