Ewald v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 220 Cal. Rptr. 3d 751 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017). · Go Syfert
Search
Ewald v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 220 Cal. Rptr. 3d 751 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
169 citation events (169 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Sterling Home Showcase v. Champion Home Builders, No. C103539 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 17, 2026)
Treatment trajectory · 2018 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2018 2022 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 751 Failing to state standard of review or legal authority forfeits argument62 citing casescounsel fails to articulate the standard of review on appeal, in and of itself a potentially fatal omission,” because “ ‘ “[a]rguments should be tailored according to the applicable standard of appellate review” ’21 citing courts put it this way
  • Sterling Home Showcase v. Champion Home Builders, No. C103539 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 17, 2026).unpublished
    (counsel fails to articulate the standard of review on appeal, in and of itself a potentially fatal omission,” because “ ‘ “[a]rguments should be tailored according to the applicable standard of appellate review” ’)
  • In re D.L., No. A174221 (Cal. Ct. App. June 24, 2026).unpublished
    (� “Arguments should be tailored according to the applicable standard of appellate review.” [Citation.] Failure to acknowledge the proper scope of review is a concession of a lack of merit’)
  • Burgos v. Singer, No. B340242 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2025).unpublished
    (failure to provide legal authorities to support arguments forfeits contentions of error)
  • Airport Bus. Ctr. v. City of Santa Rosa, 116 Cal. App. 5th 501 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025).published
    (failure to provide legal authorities to support arguments forfeits contentions of error)
  • Wrightsman v. City of Gardena, No. B344781 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 12, 2025).unpublished
    (failure to provide legal authorities to support arguments forfeits contentions of error)
  • McDoniel v. Kavry Mgmt., 114 Cal. App. 5th 949 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025).published
    (We repeatedly have held that the failure to provide legal authorities to support arguments forfeits contentions of error.)
  • Cramer v. Auburn Lake Trails Prop. Owners Ass'n, No. C099848 (Cal. Ct. App. May 9, 2025).unpublished 2 cites
    (We repeatedly have held that the failure to provide legal authorities to support arguments forfeits contentions of error)
  • Paleny v. Fireplace Prods. U.S., Inc., 103 Cal. App. 5th 199 (Cal. Ct. App. 2024).published
    (We repeatedly have held that the failure to provide legal authorities to support arguments forfeits contentions of error)
  • O'Neil v. Kistler, No. D079932 (Cal. Ct. App. May 30, 2023).unpublished
    ([F]ailure to provide legal authorities to support arguments forfeits contentions of error)
  • Ristau v. Likely Land & Livestock, No. C095204 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 21, 2023).unpublished
    (� “Arguments should be tailored according to the applicable standard of appellate review” ’)
Show 52 more citing cases
  • Simon v. City of Orange, No. G061046 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2022).unpublished
    (the failure to provide legal authorities to support arguments forfeits contentions of error)
  • Richards v. Strang, No. G059305 (Cal. Ct. App. May 2, 2022).unpublished
    (We repeatedly have held that the failure to provide legal authorities to support arguments forfeits contentions of error)
  • Blackburn v. Cnty. of San Diego, No. D076904 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 24, 2022).unpublished
    (We repeatedly have held that the 11 At most, Blackburn mentions Civil Code section 1951.2, but that section details remedies that apply when a lessee abandons a property before the end of a lease. (Id. at subd. (a).) T…)
  • Farmland Prot. All. v. Cnty. of Yolo, 71 Cal. App. 5th 300 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021).published
    (� “Arguments should be tailored according to the applicable standard of appellate review.” [Citation.] Failure to acknowledge the proper scope of review is a concession of lack of merit.’)
  • DCM-P1 v. Rushmore Loan Mgmt. Servs., No. B303878 (Cal. Ct. App. July 1, 2021).unpublished
    (the failure to provide legal authorities to support arguments forfeits contentions of error)
  • Segerstrom v. Yergovich, No. D076373 (Cal. Ct. App. May 3, 2021).unpublished
    (failure to provide legal authorities to support arguments forfeits contentions of error)
  • Arnold v. Dignity Health, No. C087465 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 13, 2020).published
    (We repeatedly have held that the failure to provide legal authorities to support arguments forfeits contentions of error)
  • Becker v. Artisanal Brewers Collective, LLC, No. B340792 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 1, 2026).unpublished
    By mischaracterizing the trial court’s findings and failing to apply the appropriate standard of review, Becker conceded the lack of merit of his arguments (Sonic 12 Manufacturing Technologies, Inc. v. AAE Systems, Inc. (2011) 196 Cal.App.…
  • Marriage of Jacobs, No. A173230M (Cal. Ct. App. June 30, 2026).unpublished
    (failing “to articulate the standard of review on appeal [is] in and of itself a potentially 3 fatal omission)
  • Marriage of Jacobs, No. A174154M (Cal. Ct. App. June 30, 2026).unpublished
    (failing “to articulate the standard of review on appeal [is] in and of itself a potentially fatal omission)
  • Song v. Liu, No. A174370 (Cal. Ct. App. June 26, 2026).unpublished
    (failure to provide adequate legal authority and analysis forfeits contentions on appeal)
  • Marriage of Jacobs, No. A173230 (Cal. Ct. App. June 1, 2026).unpublished
    (failing “to articulate the standard of review on appeal [is] in and of itself a potentially 3 fatal omission)
  • Marriage of Jacobs, No. A174154 (Cal. Ct. App. June 1, 2026).unpublished
    (failing “to articulate the standard of review on appeal [is] in and of itself a potentially fatal omission)
  • People v. Salazar, No. D085992 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 10, 2026).unpublished
    (Ewald v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 947, 948 (Ewald).) Moreover, if a party does not object to a specific action in the trial court, that party is generally precluded from challenging that action on appeal and is deeme…
  • D.H. v. Superior Court, No. A174597 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2026).unpublished
    (failing “to articulate the standard of review on appeal [is] in and of itself a 32 potentially fatal omission)
  • J.People v. Sutter Bay Hospitals, No. A171454 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2026).unpublished
    (failure “to articulate the standard of review on appeal” is “in and of itself a potentially fatal omission)
  • Khalil v. Steiner, No. H052541 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 8, 2025).unpublished
    (appellant must support each claim with meaningful analysis and citation to legal authority)
  • Stallo v. Mount San Jacinto Cmty. Coll. Distrct, No. E081215 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 5, 2025).unpublished
    (Ermoian v. Desert Hospital (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 475, 500-501 .) Additionally, “ ‘[t]he substantial evidence standard of review takes on a unique formulation where, as here, “the trier of fact has expressly or implicitly concluded that t…
  • Alexander v. City of Santa Cruz, No. H051774 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2025).unpublished
    (Ewald v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 947, 948 (Ewald).) An appellant’s failure to raise a point (or to support it with reasoned argument and citations to authority) allows the reviewing court to deem the unsupported con…
  • Cnty. of Alameda Dept. of Child Support Servs. v. Vaughn, No. A171569 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2025).unpublished
    (failing “to articulate the standard of review on appeal [is] in and of itself a potentially fatal omission)
  • Trias v. Robello, No. A172106 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 8, 2025).unpublished
    (failure “to articulate the standard of review on appeal” is “in and of itself a potentially fatal omission)
  • All. San Diego v. California Taxpayers Action Network, 114 Cal. App. 5th 1121 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025).published
    (Ewald v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 947, 948 (Ewald); Dabney v. Dabney (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 379, 384 .) Also, CTAN has not presented any substantive legal analysis showing that the trial court abused its discretion b…
  • Marriage of Khym & Miner, No. A170007 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2025).unpublished
    (failing “to articulate the standard of review on appeal [is] in and of itself a potentially fatal omission)
  • Winjet Trading v. Chu, No. E081214 (Cal. Ct. App. July 22, 2025).unpublished
    (the failure to provide legal authorities to support arguments forfeits contentions of error)
  • Williams v. Bowie, No. A166994 (Cal. Ct. App. June 13, 2025).unpublished
    (failing “to articulate the standard of review on appeal [is] in and of itself a potentially fatal omission)
  • C.T. v. Kern Cnty. Bd. of Educ., No. F087562M (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 8, 2025).unpublished
    (We repeatedly have held that the failure to provide legal authorities to support arguments forfeits 18. contentions of error.)
  • Perez v. Perez, No. F087666 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2024).unpublished 2 cites
    (absence of legal authorities forfeits an argument on appeal)
  • Brown v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust, No. B324911 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 2024).unpublished
    (See Mireskandari v. Gallagher (2020) 59 Cal.App.5th 346 , 371 [plaintiff forfeited an argument by not providing “any legal argument or citation to authority”]; Ewald v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (2017) 14 Brown states Glaski was “cited by…
  • In re Ransom on Habeas Corpus, No. C098614 (Cal. Ct. App. July 12, 2024).unpublished
    (explaining that arguments should be tailored to the applicable standard of review and “ ‘[f]ailure to acknowledge the proper scope of review is a concession of a lack of merit’)
  • Marriage of L.R. & K.A., No. D082521A (Cal. Ct. App. July 11, 2024).unpublished
    (failure to acknowledge proper scope of review is concession of lack of merit)
  • Marriage of L.R. & K.A., No. D082521 (Cal. Ct. App. June 7, 2024).unpublished
    (failure to acknowledge proper scope of review is concession of lack of merit)
  • ACR Servs. v. LSM Grp., No. D082256 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 6, 2023).unpublished
    (concluding the failure to articulate the standard of review on appeal is potentially a fatal omission)
  • Marriage of Wehrli, No. D079527 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 3, 2023).unpublished
    (Niko v. Foreman (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 344, 368 (Niko); Ewald v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 947, 948 (Ewald); People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 793 (Stanley); Salas v. Department of Transportation (2011) 198 Cal…
  • Marriage of Bassi, No. H046284 (Cal. Ct. App. June 22, 2023).unpublished
    Examples include Susan’s assertions that (1) the Referee had no jurisdiction in the proceedings; (2) the Referee’s alleged lack of jurisdiction rendered the judgment void; (3) all of the Referee’s orders were void; and (4) the Referee’s al…
  • Connolly Ranch v. Dep't of Parks & Rec., No. C092009M (Cal. Ct. App. May 23, 2023).unpublished 2 cites
    (Ewald v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 947, 948 (Ewald).) We deem several of the Ranch’s arguments forfeited under the foregoing legal principles, as discussed post.
  • Connolly Ranch v. Dep't of Parks & Rec., No. C092009 (Cal. Ct. App. May 2, 2023).unpublished 2 cites
    (Ewald v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 947, 948 (Ewald).) We deem several of the Ranch’s arguments forfeited under the foregoing legal principles, as discussed post.
  • Boer & Sons v. Gomes, No. F082403 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 16, 2023).unpublished
    (failure to acknowledge proper scope of review is a concession of lack of merit)
  • In re Hailey G., No. B315529M (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 1, 2023).unpublished
    (� “Arguments should be tailored according to the applicable standard of appellate review.” [Citation.] Failure to acknowledge the proper scope of review is a concession of a lack of merit’)
  • In re Hailey G., No. B315529 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 24, 2023).unpublished
    (� “Arguments should be tailored according to the applicable standard of appellate review.” [Citation.] Failure to acknowledge the proper scope of review is a concession of a lack of merit’)
  • Salarkia v. Faghihi, No. B296826 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 21, 2020).unpublished
  • Zuniga v. Cherry Avenue Auction, 61 Cal. App. 5th 980 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021).published
  • SwedelsonGottlieb v. Noland, No. A156334 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 2, 2021).unpublished
  • Law Offices of Benjamin Pavone v. Willis, No. D075817 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 18, 2021).unpublished
  • Richards v. Richards, No. G059675 (Cal. Ct. App. May 2, 2022).unpublished
  • Marriage of Quintana, No. C092708 (Cal. Ct. App. June 30, 2022).unpublished
  • Cavana v. Ingram, No. C091873 (Cal. Ct. App. July 21, 2022).unpublished
  • Tunucci v. City & Cnty. of S.F., No. A163344 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 15, 2022).unpublished
  • Ahmadi v. Cebrail Altindag, No. G060474 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 2022).unpublished
  • People v. Jamerson-Keosodsay, No. C101883 (Cal. Ct. App. May 27, 2026).unpublished
  • Mosley v. Pac. Specialty Ins. Co., No. E071287 (Cal. Ct. App. May 26, 2020).published
  • Mosley v. Pac. Specialty Ins. Co., No. E071287M (Cal. Ct. App. June 24, 2020).published
  • Dahl v. Bonta, No. B316892 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 3, 2023).unpublished
At page 752 “we repeatedly have held that the failure to provide legal authorities to support arguments forfeits contentions of error”1 citing case19 citing courts quote it
  • Qiao v. Chang, No. E085692 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 5, 2026).unpublished
    (affirming without discussing merits where opening brief failed to “provide adequate legal authority to support th[e] appeal)
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Richard EWALD, and
v.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, and
C081760.
California Court of Appeal, 3rd District.
Jun 28, 2017.
Published opinion
220 Cal. Rptr. 3d 751
2017 WL 3193760
2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 654
Stacie Lynn, Power Power Law, P.C., 2214 North Ave, Chico, CA 95926, for Plaintiff and Appellant., M. Elizabeth Holt, Severson & Werson, One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA 94111, for Defendant and Respondent.
Duarte.
Cited by 100 opinions  |  Published
Duarte, J.

[*948] Plaintiff Richard Ewald, through counsel, timely appealed from a judgment following a successful defense motion for summary judgment.

Ewald's counsel fails to articulate the standard of review on appeal, in and of itself a potentially fatal omission. " 'Arguments should be tailored according to the applicable standard of appellate review.' [Citation.] Failure to acknowledge the proper scope of review is a concession of a lack of merit." ([*752] Sonic Manufacturing Technologies, Inc. v. AAE Systems, Inc . (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 456, 465, 126 Cal.Rptr.3d 301.) More importantly, Ewald's counsel fails to provide any legal authority to support her arguments. We repeatedly have held that the failure to provide legal authorities to support arguments forfeits contentions of error. (See In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408, 41 Cal.Rptr.3d 453 ; Akins v. State of California (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1, 50, 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 314 ; In re Marriage of Nichols (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 661, 672-673, fn. 3, 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 13.)[*949] As respondent's counsel observes, Ewald's counsel does provide an accurate statutory citation in support of the proposition that the judgment is appealable ( Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd. (a)(1) ), and in her statement of the case she cites a single case referenced by the trial court in its tentative ruling ( Nungaray v. Litton Loan Servicing, LP (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1499, 135 Cal.Rptr.3d 442 ). Putting aside the fact that Ewald's counsel both fails to cite that case properly and fails to provide an accurate citation to where the document citing that case can be found in the record on appeal, the trial court did not even cite to that case in the final ruling. Further, Ewald's counsel does not explain the holding of that case, nor does counsel explain why that case has any relevance to her claims on appeal, to the extent we can decipher them.

In the argument section of her brief, Ewald's counsel describes two causes of action, misrepresentation and breach of contract, and argues triable issues remain as to each. However, she does not describe the elements of either cause of action. Without a statement of the elements of a cause of action, supported by authority, counsel cannot establish whether triable issues of fact exist as to either cause of action.

In short, as respondent properly argues, the opening brief does not satisfy counsel's duty to provide adequate legal authority to support this appeal. Ewald's counsel did not file a reply brief, nor anywhere offer an explanation for failing to comply with her duty to properly brief this case. In light of counsel's egregious violations of basic appellate norms, we affirm the judgment without discussing the merits.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Appellant shall pay respondent's costs of this appeal. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a).)

We concur:

Robie, Acting P. J.

Butz, J.