California
Appeals

Garlock Sealing v. Nak Sealing-C050813-3/21/07 CA3


Standard of Review
Table of Contents
 

C

We turn to the question of prejudice.  Error in excluding evidence is a ground for reversing a judgment only if the error resulted in a miscarriage of justice, and that a different result would have been probable if the error had not occurred.  (Zhou v. Unisource Worldwide, supra, 157 Cal.App.4th at p. 1480; see also Cal. Const., art. VI, § 13.)  We find the requisite prejudice in this case.

            Appellant’s civil action alleged breach of written and oral contract, premised on the existence of a settlement agreement resulting from the August 22, 2004 mediation, and promissory estoppel, based on promises made on that date.  The chart, signed and initialed by each of the parties, was allegedly the written memorialization of their agreement.  Although lacking in details, the chart set out basic terms which, with the addition of parole evidence, were capable of being made certain.  But absence of the chart or any evidence about its preparation eviscerated appellant’s case.  It left him only with his own testimony that there was an agreement, and that of his cousin and former trustee, Jose Varkey, whose testimony was very confusing because he spoke English with difficulty.  This was weighed against the testimony of respondents that no agreement was reached.  Had the chart been admitted, the court could have found that it corroborated Peter’s version of events, and thus may have found his testimony regarding the existence of an agreement to be credible.  This could have resulted in a favorable judgment in his civil action.  Instead, the court found Peter could not prove the existence of an agreement or promises in the civil action because there was no admissible evidence of an agreement, and thus entered judgment against Peter. 

            It is also reasonably probable that admission of the chart would have resulted in a more favorable judgment in the trust action.  That action arose in large part from appellant’s conduct with respect to the Pearblossom property.  If appellant were able to prove the existence of a settlement agreement, his transfer of that property to himself would not constitute a breach of fiduciary duty and he also would be entitled to collect and keep the rental income.  This evidence also could have rebutted the allegation that Peter acted in bad faith, which resulted in the court’s imposition of additional damages under Probate Code section 859.  Exclusion of the August 22, 2004 chart and evidence regarding its preparation resulted in prejudice, and requires reversal of the judgment in both the civil and estate actions.

            In light of this decision, we need not and do not address appellant’s further claim that Judge Satt was not entitled to “reverse” Judge Freeman’s ruling with respect to the admissibility of the chart.  We also need not address his claim that the court erred in its award of damages under Probate Code section 859.