Background
Charles E. Thompson, acting as trustee of the Thompson-Philp Family Trust, sued Bruce C. Williams and other cotenants in June 2020 to quiet title to a San Jose condominium the parties had purchased together in 1980. Thompson alleged that Williams had abandoned his 25 percent tenancy-in-common interest by failing to contribute to any cotenancy expenses for over three decades. The complaint also asserted claims for partition, cotenancy lien, foreclosure of cotenancy lien, and accounting. Williams retained counsel and filed a second amended answer in February 2021.
In June 2024, Thompson moved for summary judgment, arguing that Williams was judicially estopped from claiming an interest in the property due to nondisclosure in three bankruptcy filings, lacked standing because any interest remained in the bankruptcy estate, had abandoned his interest by failing to pay for over 30 years, and was barred by unclean hands. Williams did not file an opposition. On October 15, 2024, the trial court granted the motion, finding Thompson had met his initial burden and that the failure to oppose could be deemed consent. Williams filed a premature notice of appeal in November 2024, which this court dismissed in January 2025. The trial court entered judgment on March 13, 2025, declaring that Williams had no ownership interest and that Thompson, Zapitz, and the Nichols heirs each held a one-third tenancy-in-common interest. Williams then substituted himself as counsel and filed a second notice of appeal on May 13, 2025.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. Writing for the panel, Justice Bromberg rejected Williams's argument that the judgment should be vacated due to his trial counsel's alleged abandonment, neglect, and gross misconduct in failing to oppose the summary judgment motion. The court held that Williams forfeited this argument by not raising it in the trial court: he learned of the summary judgment order by November 22, 2024, when he filed his first, premature notice of appeal, yet in the six months before filing his second notice of appeal he did not file a motion to vacate either the summary judgment order or the judgment.
The court further held that even if the argument had been preserved, it would fail for lack of due diligence. Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b) requires that an application to vacate a judgment, dismissal, or order for mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, and California decisions treat unexplained delays of three months or more as unreasonable. Williams learned of the failure to oppose by November 2024, but after his first appeal was dismissed in January 2025 he took no action for five months before filing a second notice of appeal, offering no explanation for the delay.
Finally, the court held that Williams's abandonment claim was unsupported by evidence. The only documents he cited—the summary judgment order, the judgment, and two versions of a substitution of counsel—did not show abandonment, and unsupported assertions of fact in appellate briefs are disregarded. The court accordingly rejected the claim and declined to reach matters raised for the first time at oral argument.
Key Takeaways
- Arguments not raised in the trial court are forfeited on appeal, including claims that counsel's abandonment warrants vacating a summary judgment order or judgment.
- Motions to vacate under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b) must be filed within a reasonable time, and unexplained delays of three months or more after learning of the grounds are unreasonable as a matter of law; Williams's unexplained five-month delay therefore failed.
- Unsupported assertions of fact in appellate briefs, without citations to the record, are disregarded by the reviewing court.
- A party who fails to oppose a summary judgment motion risks having the failure deemed consent to the motion under California law.
- The Court of Appeal will not consider matters raised for the first time at oral argument.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the importance of preserving issues in the trial court and acting diligently when seeking relief from a judgment. It illustrates that claims of attorney abandonment must be supported by evidence in the record and raised promptly through proper procedural channels, such as a timely motion to vacate under section 473.
The ruling also confirms that failure to oppose a summary judgment motion can be treated as consent, making it critical for litigants to respond to such motions even when facing difficulties with counsel, and it underscores that appellate courts will disregard factual assertions unsupported by the record.
Read the full opinion (PDF) · Court docket