Merritt

Merritt v. Marks

Good Law
175 Cal. App. 3d 825·1985 Cal. App. LEXIS 2878·221 Cal. Rptr. 88
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 17, 1985No. B010480California1,068 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Ashby, J.

—Respondent Celeste Merritt sued appellants Elaine Marks, Gary Goldberg and Norma Berson for fraud in the sale of real property. *827 The case was ordered into judicial arbitration. Appellants and their attorney failed to appear. The arbitrator awarded $9,108 to respondent. Appellants timely filed a request for a trial de novo, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1141.20 1 and California Rules of Court rule 1616. The request was denied without prejudice to their making a motion to set aside the default before the arbitrator. This appeal followed.

Under section 1141.20, subdivision (b), “[a]ny party may elect to have a de novo trial, by court or jury, both as to law and facts. ...” The judicial arbitration legislation (§ 1141.10 et seq.) sets forth no procedural prerequisites for a defaulting defendant before he or she seeks trial in the superior court other than making the request within 20 days. (Hebert v. Ham (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 465 , 470 [ 184 Cal.Rptr. 83 ].) It cannot be said that there is an absolute right to a de novo trial. Where a party deliberately attempts to circumvent court-ordered arbitration proceedings by requesting the arbitrator to enter an…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.