Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)

Citation: Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
Parent Document: Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2025-03-14
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10356658/kaushansky-v-stonecroft-attorneys-apc/ ↗

Full Text

1,851 chars

9
      1.      Stonecroft May Argue the Evidence Is Insufficient To
              Support the Judgment for the First Time on Appeal
       Kaushansky asserts Stonecroft forfeited its argument that
she failed to prove collectibility because: (1) it did not assert this
theory of nonliability at trial and may not do so for the first time
on appeal; and (2) it omitted material evidence from the
statement of facts and from the record on appeal.
       “Generally, points not urged in the trial court cannot be
raised on appeal. [Citation.] The contention that a judgment is
not supported by substantial evidence, however, is an obvious
exception.” (Tahoe National Bank v. Phillips (1971) 4 Cal.3d 11,
23, fn. 17 (Tahoe National Bank); accord, First National Bank v.
Maryland Casualty Co. (1912) 162 Cal. 61, 72-73 (Maryland
Casualty Co.) [challenge to sufficiency of the evidence to support
finding on which insurance liability was predicated is not
forfeited by lack of objection]; Mundy v. Lenc (2012)
203 Cal.App.4th 1401, 1407 (Mundy) [the sufficiency of the
evidence can be “raised for the first time on appeal”]; see In re
Brian P. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 616, 623 [challenge to sufficiency
of the evidence to support finding of adoptability may be raised
for the first time on appeal].)
       As more fully explained in the next section, as the plaintiff
Kaushansky had the burden to prove that she could have
collected the $91,734.29 hypothetical judgment from her
landlord. Stonecroft’s contention that Kaushansky failed to prove
the element of collectibility is a challenge to the sufficiency of
Kaushansky’s evidence. Longstanding California authority
provides that Stonecroft may raise its sufficiency of the evidence
argument for the first time on appeal. (See Tahoe National
Bank, supra, 4 Cal.3d at p. 23, fn. 17; Maryland Casualty Co.,

Other Sections in This Document (56)

Full Text