Elena S. v. Kroutik

Defendant was unable to challenge domestic violence protective order on the ground that he had not consented to have a court commissioner decide the issue, because he impliedly consented to have the commissioner decide the matter by participating in the hearing and couldn’t produce an oral record of the proceedings proving he had withheld consent at that time.  Defendant challenged a domestic violence protective order entered against him on the ground he had not consented to have a court commissioner decide the issue.  However, defendant provided no reporter’s transcript or settled statement of the proceedings so he could not prove he hadn’t orally consented to the commissioner at the hearing.  Also, defendant impliedly consented to have the commissioner decide the matter by participating in the hearing.

California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1 (Prager, J.); May 18, 2016; 2016 WL 2943411

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s