On March 06, 2002 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Meline, Charlen M,
Meline, Edward Richard,
Meline, Robert J,
Meline, Stephen, Iv,
and
Edgington, Melanie G,
Jessee, Nelda F,
Meline, David L,
Meline, Jack,
Meline & Rabo Farms Inc, A California Corporation,
Meline, Robert J,
Meline, Stephen, Iv,
Meline, Violet Arlene,
for (26) Unlimited Other Real Property
in the District Court of Butte County.
Preview
Aaron W. Moore, State Bar No.: 248566
Collin M. Bogener, State Bar No.: 272560
Michael L. Ricks, State Bar No.: 314687
10/27/2021
Jason R. Lehfeldt, State 13ar No.: 215792
MOORE & BOGENER, INC.
1600 West Street
Redding, California 96001
(530) 605-0355 / 605-3693 (fax)
Jeffery J. SAvanson, State Bar No.: 155118
SWANSON LAW OFI"ICE
2515 Park Marina Drive, Stc. 102
Redding, CA 96001
(530) 225-8773 /232-2882 (fax)
10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
STEPHEN MELINE, IV,
ROBERT J. MELINF„
NELDA F. JESSEE,
12
MELANIE G. FDGINGTON
14 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THK STATE OF CALIFORNIA
15
IN AND FOR THK COUNTY OF BUTTE
16
17
STEPHEN MFI,INE IV, CASL'O.: 127180
18 ROBERT J. MELINE,
NELDA F. JESSEE,
MELANIE G. EDGINGTON MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
Plaintiffs, AUTHORITIKS IN SUPPORT OF
20 PLAINTIFFS'OTION IN LIMINE
21 //1 TO EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE
AT TRIAL CHALLFNIFING THK
22 RANDALL C. MELINE, et al. INTERLOCUTORY TRIAL ORDER
Defendants. AND OTHER PREVIOUS RULINGS
23
Trial Date: November 8, 2021
Honorable Tamara L. Mosbarger
25 AND REI.ATED CROSS-ACTION.
Dept. 1
26 /
27
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
IN
rsge t
SIIP PORT Ol" PLAIN Il I'I'S'OTION IN LIMINE Ill 'I'0 EXCLODE ANY EY ID FNCL'T TRIAL .,
INTRODUCTION
This motion in limine seeks an order to prevent Defendants I'rom re-arguing matters
which have already been settled at the interlocutory trial. Through communications with
6
counsel for Defendants, and a review of their trial briefs, it appears that Defendants intend to
argue that (I) a partition cannot occur, and (2) that there is confusion as to the property to be
partitioned. An order is necessary to prevent re-argument of these issues and to prevent an
9 undue consumption of time and confusion of the issues. More importantly, argument at trial
10 is not the proper method to challenge the order from an interlocutory trial. For these reasons,
as fully outlined below, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court issue an order excluding
any evidence challenging the interlocutoiy trial order.
II.
FACTS AND BACKGROUND
14
Counsel for all parties to this partition action appeared at the interlocutory trial in front
15
of the Refercc Honorable Judge Watkins, and an order was issued by Judge Watkins on June
16
13, 2016. At that trial, the parties provided argument and evidence for the respective interests
17
of thc parties involved, thc real property subject to the partition, and whether the real property
would be partitioned. All counsel had the opportunity to make their points and provide their
19 evidence. In his Order, the Court held as follows:
20 l. As an interlocutory decree in this case it is adjudicated and ordered that.
21 2. The parties and their respective undivided interests in the real property are as
set forth on the attached Exhibit A.
3. The real property that is subject to partition in this action is comprised of
23
Separate Parcels as set forth on Exhibit B. Thc Referee adopts the property descriptions both
24
as to Assessor's Parcel Numbers and Lot Book Guarantee as stipulated by counsel.
25
4. The properties shall bc partitioned either in kind or by sale to be determined
26
after evidentiary hearing and as included in a final decree. (Sce Fxhibit I to Plaintiffs'equest
for Judicial Notice.)
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND ITIES
AUTEUR I'F PLAINTIPFS'OTION IN LIMINE Sl TO FXCI UDE ANY EVIDENCE
IN SUP POD
Page 2
AT TRIAL,,
1 There appears to be no dispute as to rulings numbered I and 2 above, As to ruling
number 3, Exhibit B includes both Assessor Parcel Numbers and Legal Parcels described in
the Lot Book Guarantee. As to the real property at issue, thc Referee clarified that matter
3
through his "Ruling on Motions (3)*'hich was also issued on June 13, 2016. According to
4
that decision
"Although the Counsel have not addressed the issue the Rel'cree deems it
relevant to direct attention to the confusion that may in future hearings
arise from reliance on Assessors Parcel Numbers. As Counsel are aware,
APN's are not legal descriptions or indicative of title but are arbitrarily
assigned by the County Assessors office solely for the purpose of
designating the property I'or taxation." (See Exhibit 2 to Request for
Judicial Notice).
The above statement from the Referee makes clear that the paitition concerns the legal
11 parcels, of which the Lot Book Guarantee includes 13, and not the 21 Assessor Parcel
12 Numbers. The legal parcels have been the real property referenced since thc beginning, as they
13 were included in the original Complaint. Any claim of "abandonment" or "waiver" of the real
property at issue would be an attempt to challenge the Interlocutory Order, as the matter was
settled through that decision.
Regarding item mimber 4 of thc Interlocutory Order, the plain language of the Order
16
makes it clear that the property will be partitioned; it is only the manner of the partition (sale
17
or in-kind) which is the subject of this trial. Any claims that the property should not be
18
pari.itioned should have been made at the interlocutory trial and Defendants are now barred
from presenting evidence on those issues.
20 IH.
LECAL AUTHORITY
22 A. Defendants Are Barred from Challenaina the Interlocutorv Trial Order
23 Thc purpose of an interlocutory trial is to determine certain foundational issues,
24 including the parties'nterests in the real property and whether partition can be had. (See Code
of Civ. Proc. Section 872.720.) Importantly, an interlocutory judgment, even though
preliminaiy in nature, is considered a final judgment and directly appealable. (See Felder v.
Felder (1967) 247 Cal.App.2d 718.) As the Felder Court provided "It is true that the judgment
27
was interlocutory in nature and was preliminary to the final judgment later entered, but it was
28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTRORITIL'S IN SUPPORT OP PI AINTIFI'S'IOTION IN LIMINK Sl TO EXCCUDK ANY KYIDENCKPnge 3
AT TRIAI,...
nevertheless final in the sense that it determined the important issues to which we have referred
and hence was an appealable judgment, although not the last judgment in this case." (Jd. at
721- 722.)
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 8.104(a), a notice ol'ppeal must be tiled
within 180 days after ihe linal judgment. In this case, the final judgment was issued on June
5
13, 2016. 180 days after June 13„2016 was December 10, 2016. No notice of appeal was filed
6
by any of the Defendants in this action prior to December 10, 2016 and therefore the parties
are now time barred from challenging thc order from the interlocutory trial.
As a result„Defendants are unable io challenge whether or not a partition may be had;
that issue has been decided and was not appealed, Further, the Defendants are unablc to
10 challenge that ihe real property subject to partition has been "abandoned" or "waived," as thc
11
Referee stated in the interlocutory order that the property subject to dispute is the 13 legal
parcels. Both issues have been settled and no appeal filed.
12
B. Anv Challenue to the lnterlocutorv Order is an Undue Consumntion of
13 Time
14 "The
Pursuant to Evidence Code section 352, Court in its discretion may exclude
15 evidence if its probative vale is substantially outweighed by the probability that iis admission
16 will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time ..."
17 There is no probative value in arguing that partition should not occur or that this
18 partition does not concern the 13 legal parcels in the Lot Book Cniarantee, as those issues werc
decided at the interlocutory trial and were noi appealed. In contrast, the undue consumption
of time which would result if'efendants are permitted to continue to argue these matters
20
would be great. It would result in Defendants arguing matters which have no bearing on the
21
decision of this trial.
23
CONCLUSION
24
Through this motion, Plaintiffs seek io exclude Defendants lrom presenting any
evidence at trial challenging the Interlocutory Trial Order. Specifically, the exclusion should
apply to any evidence that a partition should not occur or evidence that thc partition applies io
27 property other than the 13 legal parcels listed in thc Litigation Guarantee. The Interlocutory
ETIO OP POINTS AND AUTII
ange 4
M RANDEM ORITIESINSUPPORT Ol" PLA
IN TIFF
M Pl TO EXCLUDE ANT KVR)ENCE AT TRIA I....
RIOT ION IN LPR INK
Order is an appealable final order, and was not appealed within 180 days as required by law
which means that Defendants are now barred from challenging the Order. Effectively,
Plaintiffs seek an order excluding any evidence challenging the order in this trial.
Dated: October 27, 2021
MOORE Bc BOGENER, INC.
By:
AARON W. MOORE
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
STEPHEN MELINE, IV,
ROBERT J. MELINE,
NELDA F. JESSEE,
MELANIE G. EDGINGTON
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
NIEMORANOUM OF POINTS ANO AOTRORITIES IN SOPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS'IOTION IN LRRINE al TO EXCLIIOE ANY EYIOENCE
Page 5
AT TRIAL
Preview
Aaron W. Moore, State Bar No.: 248566 Collin M. Bogener, State Bar No.: 272560 Michael L. Ricks, State Bar No.: 314687 10/27/2021 Jason R. Lehfeldt, State 13ar No.: 215792 MOORE & BOGENER, INC. 1600 West Street Redding, California 96001 (530) 605-0355 / 605-3693 (fax) Jeffery J. SAvanson, State Bar No.: 155118 SWANSON LAW OFI"ICE 2515 Park Marina Drive, Stc. 102 Redding, CA 96001 (530) 225-8773 /232-2882 (fax) 10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs STEPHEN MELINE, IV, ROBERT J. MELINF„ NELDA F. JESSEE, 12 MELANIE G. FDGINGTON 14 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THK STATE OF CALIFORNIA 15 IN AND FOR THK COUNTY OF BUTTE 16 17 STEPHEN MFI,INE IV, CASL'O.: 127180 18 ROBERT J. MELINE, NELDA F. JESSEE, MELANIE G. EDGINGTON MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND Plaintiffs, AUTHORITIKS IN SUPPORT OF 20 PLAINTIFFS'OTION IN LIMINE 21 //1 TO EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE AT TRIAL CHALLFNIFING THK 22 RANDALL C. MELINE, et al. INTERLOCUTORY TRIAL ORDER Defendants. AND OTHER PREVIOUS RULINGS 23 Trial Date: November 8, 2021 Honorable Tamara L. Mosbarger 25 AND REI.ATED CROSS-ACTION. Dept. 1 26 / 27 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN rsge t SIIP PORT Ol" PLAIN Il I'I'S'OTION IN LIMINE Ill 'I'0 EXCLODE ANY EY ID FNCL'T TRIAL ., INTRODUCTION This motion in limine seeks an order to prevent Defendants I'rom re-arguing matters which have already been settled at the interlocutory trial. Through communications with 6 counsel for Defendants, and a review of their trial briefs, it appears that Defendants intend to argue that (I) a partition cannot occur, and (2) that there is confusion as to the property to be partitioned. An order is necessary to prevent re-argument of these issues and to prevent an 9 undue consumption of time and confusion of the issues. More importantly, argument at trial 10 is not the proper method to challenge the order from an interlocutory trial. For these reasons, as fully outlined below, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court issue an order excluding any evidence challenging the interlocutoiy trial order. II. FACTS AND BACKGROUND 14 Counsel for all parties to this partition action appeared at the interlocutory trial in front 15 of the Refercc Honorable Judge Watkins, and an order was issued by Judge Watkins on June 16 13, 2016. At that trial, the parties provided argument and evidence for the respective interests 17 of thc parties involved, thc real property subject to the partition, and whether the real property would be partitioned. All counsel had the opportunity to make their points and provide their 19 evidence. In his Order, the Court held as follows: 20 l. As an interlocutory decree in this case it is adjudicated and ordered that. 21 2. The parties and their respective undivided interests in the real property are as set forth on the attached Exhibit A. 3. The real property that is subject to partition in this action is comprised of 23 Separate Parcels as set forth on Exhibit B. Thc Referee adopts the property descriptions both 24 as to Assessor's Parcel Numbers and Lot Book Guarantee as stipulated by counsel. 25 4. The properties shall bc partitioned either in kind or by sale to be determined 26 after evidentiary hearing and as included in a final decree. (Sce Fxhibit I to Plaintiffs'equest for Judicial Notice.) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND ITIES AUTEUR I'F PLAINTIPFS'OTION IN LIMINE Sl TO FXCI UDE ANY EVIDENCE IN SUP POD Page 2 AT TRIAL,, 1 There appears to be no dispute as to rulings numbered I and 2 above, As to ruling number 3, Exhibit B includes both Assessor Parcel Numbers and Legal Parcels described in the Lot Book Guarantee. As to the real property at issue, thc Referee clarified that matter 3 through his "Ruling on Motions (3)*'hich was also issued on June 13, 2016. According to 4 that decision "Although the Counsel have not addressed the issue the Rel'cree deems it relevant to direct attention to the confusion that may in future hearings arise from reliance on Assessors Parcel Numbers. As Counsel are aware, APN's are not legal descriptions or indicative of title but are arbitrarily assigned by the County Assessors office solely for the purpose of designating the property I'or taxation." (See Exhibit 2 to Request for Judicial Notice). The above statement from the Referee makes clear that the paitition concerns the legal 11 parcels, of which the Lot Book Guarantee includes 13, and not the 21 Assessor Parcel 12 Numbers. The legal parcels have been the real property referenced since thc beginning, as they 13 were included in the original Complaint. Any claim of "abandonment" or "waiver" of the real property at issue would be an attempt to challenge the Interlocutory Order, as the matter was settled through that decision. Regarding item mimber 4 of thc Interlocutory Order, the plain language of the Order 16 makes it clear that the property will be partitioned; it is only the manner of the partition (sale 17 or in-kind) which is the subject of this trial. Any claims that the property should not be 18 pari.itioned should have been made at the interlocutory trial and Defendants are now barred from presenting evidence on those issues. 20 IH. LECAL AUTHORITY 22 A. Defendants Are Barred from Challenaina the Interlocutorv Trial Order 23 Thc purpose of an interlocutory trial is to determine certain foundational issues, 24 including the parties'nterests in the real property and whether partition can be had. (See Code of Civ. Proc. Section 872.720.) Importantly, an interlocutory judgment, even though preliminaiy in nature, is considered a final judgment and directly appealable. (See Felder v. Felder (1967) 247 Cal.App.2d 718.) As the Felder Court provided "It is true that the judgment 27 was interlocutory in nature and was preliminary to the final judgment later entered, but it was 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTRORITIL'S IN SUPPORT OP PI AINTIFI'S'IOTION IN LIMINK Sl TO EXCCUDK ANY KYIDENCKPnge 3 AT TRIAI,... nevertheless final in the sense that it determined the important issues to which we have referred and hence was an appealable judgment, although not the last judgment in this case." (Jd. at 721- 722.) Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 8.104(a), a notice ol'ppeal must be tiled within 180 days after ihe linal judgment. In this case, the final judgment was issued on June 5 13, 2016. 180 days after June 13„2016 was December 10, 2016. No notice of appeal was filed 6 by any of the Defendants in this action prior to December 10, 2016 and therefore the parties are now time barred from challenging thc order from the interlocutory trial. As a result„Defendants are unable io challenge whether or not a partition may be had; that issue has been decided and was not appealed, Further, the Defendants are unablc to 10 challenge that ihe real property subject to partition has been "abandoned" or "waived," as thc 11 Referee stated in the interlocutory order that the property subject to dispute is the 13 legal parcels. Both issues have been settled and no appeal filed. 12 B. Anv Challenue to the lnterlocutorv Order is an Undue Consumntion of 13 Time 14 "The Pursuant to Evidence Code section 352, Court in its discretion may exclude 15 evidence if its probative vale is substantially outweighed by the probability that iis admission 16 will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time ..." 17 There is no probative value in arguing that partition should not occur or that this 18 partition does not concern the 13 legal parcels in the Lot Book Cniarantee, as those issues werc decided at the interlocutory trial and were noi appealed. In contrast, the undue consumption of time which would result if'efendants are permitted to continue to argue these matters 20 would be great. It would result in Defendants arguing matters which have no bearing on the 21 decision of this trial. 23 CONCLUSION 24 Through this motion, Plaintiffs seek io exclude Defendants lrom presenting any evidence at trial challenging the Interlocutory Trial Order. Specifically, the exclusion should apply to any evidence that a partition should not occur or evidence that thc partition applies io 27 property other than the 13 legal parcels listed in thc Litigation Guarantee. The Interlocutory ETIO OP POINTS AND AUTII ange 4 M RANDEM ORITIESINSUPPORT Ol" PLA IN TIFF M Pl TO EXCLUDE ANT KVR)ENCE AT TRIA I.... RIOT ION IN LPR INK Order is an appealable final order, and was not appealed within 180 days as required by law which means that Defendants are now barred from challenging the Order. Effectively, Plaintiffs seek an order excluding any evidence challenging the order in this trial. Dated: October 27, 2021 MOORE Bc BOGENER, INC. By: AARON W. MOORE Attorneys for Plaintiffs STEPHEN MELINE, IV, ROBERT J. MELINE, NELDA F. JESSEE, MELANIE G. EDGINGTON 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NIEMORANOUM OF POINTS ANO AOTRORITIES IN SOPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS'IOTION IN LRRINE al TO EXCLIIOE ANY EYIOENCE Page 5 AT TRIAL