Holt v. Brock
Case Number: C091636
Court: Cal. Ct. App.
Date Filed: 2022-11-21
Case Brief – Holt v. Brock
Court: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Date: 2025-09-03
Case Number: C091636
Disposition: The judgment is affirmed. Costs on appeal are awarded to Brock.
Holding
The court held that a real‑estate broker appointed by the trial court to market and sell partitioned property performs a quasi‑judicial function within the judicial process and therefore is entitled to quasi‑judicial immunity, warranting summary judgment in his favor.
Narrative
Lead – In a rare extension of quasi‑judicial immunity, the California Court of Appeal affirmed a trial‑court summary‑judgment for a court‑appointed real‑estate broker, holding that his role in a partition sale rendered him an “arm of the court” whose discretionary determination of price was integral to the judicial resolution of the dispute.
Procedural History – The dispute began when Darrell L. Holt and his sister, Darice Harlan, inherited equal interests in a Nevada City residence. After a failed attempt to agree on a partition, the Nevada County Superior Court ordered the property sold and directed the parties to select a licensed broker. The parties could not agree, so the court appointed Charles Brock, a Coldwell Banker broker, to list and sell the home. The trial court later appointed a receiver, Stephen Haas, to manage the sale. Brock’s appointment and the court’s instructions—exclusive six‑month listing, a six‑percent commission, and authority to set the listing price—were undisputed. When Holt sued Brock in 2018 alleging breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, Brock moved for summary judgment on the ground of quasi‑judicial immunity. The trial court granted the motion; Holt appealed.
Facts – The court’s orders gave Brock discretionary authority to determine the “price he deems appropriate” after assessing market value, to report monthly marketing activity, and to obtain final court approval of any sale. The parties were required to cooperate and not interfere. A receiver was later empowered to approve the sale, and the property ultimately sold to the Harlans for $475,000, a price the receiver deemed commercially reasonable. Holt’s own offer of $462,500 was rejected. Holt contended that Brock acted as an advocate for the sellers, breached the listing agreement by refusing a reduced commission, and undervalued the property.
Issues –
- Whether Brock’s failure to list the quasi‑judicial immunity defense in his separate statement of undisputed facts violated California Rules of Court and, if so, whether that defect warranted denial of summary judgment.
- Whether Brock, as a court‑appointed broker, performed a function that qualifies for quasi‑judicial immunity.
Court’s Reasoning
Procedural Defect – The appellate court applied the discretionary standard governing Rule 3.1350 violations. It found no abuse of discretion because Holt neither raised the defect in his opposition brief nor demonstrated that the omission prevented him from presenting material facts. The court noted that the undisputed orders themselves identified Brock’s appointment and the scope of his authority, satisfying the summary‑judgment burden despite the procedural lapse.
Quasi‑Judicial Immunity – The court turned to Howard v. Drapkin and the three‑class framework for quasi‑judicial immunity. Brock did not fit the first class (functions normally performed by a judge) nor the second (neutral dispute‑resolution providers). However, under the third class—persons appointed by the court to perform functions integral to the judicial process—Brock qualified. The court emphasized that the trial court vested Brock with discretionary authority to set the listing price, a core dispute in the partition action. By determining market value, Brock resolved the very issue that had prompted the partition suit. Moreover, his actions were subject to court supervision, reporting requirements, and final approval, mirroring the oversight applied to receivers, guardians ad litem, and other court‑appointed experts.
The court rejected Holt’s “advocate” characterization, noting that Brock’s fiduciary duties to the sellers did not preclude quasi‑judicial immunity because his primary duty was to the court’s order to effectuate a sale, not to champion the sellers’ preferences. The policy rationale—encouraging qualified professionals to accept court appointments without fear of liability—aligned with the immunity’s purpose of preserving judicial independence and finality.
Disposition – The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s summary‑judgment granting of quasi‑judicial immunity to Brock and awarded costs on appeal to him.
Impact and Unresolved Questions – Holt v. Brock clarifies that court‑appointed brokers in partition sales are “arms of the court” when vested with discretionary pricing authority, extending quasi‑judicial immunity beyond traditional adjudicators and neutral mediators. Practitioners should note that the immunity hinges on the presence of a judicially‑mandated discretionary function, not merely on the existence of a contractual relationship with the parties. The decision also underscores that procedural missteps in pleading affirmative defenses will not automatically overturn summary‑judgment rulings if the moving party’s burden is otherwise satisfied.
Nevertheless, the opinion leaves open how far the immunity stretches when a court‑appointed professional’s actions intersect with ordinary commercial advocacy. Future disputes may test the boundary where a broker’s fiduciary duties to sellers conflict with the court’s directive, especially in cases involving alleged over‑ or under‑pricing that could be framed as a breach of the broker’s ordinary contractual obligations rather than a quasi‑judicial act. Attorneys should carefully assess whether a client’s role involves discretionary judgment integral to the court’s resolution of a dispute before asserting or contesting quasi‑judicial immunity.
Referenced Statutes and Doctrines
- California Code of Civil Procedure § 437c (summary judgment standards)
- California Rules of Court, rule 3.1350 (requirements for affirmative defenses in summary‑judgment motions)
- Quasi‑judicial immunity (extension of judicial immunity to non‑judicial actors performing judicial or quasi‑judicial functions) – Howard v. Drapkin, 222 Cal.App.3d 843 (1990)
- Three‑class framework for quasi‑judicial immunity – Howard; Regan v. Price, 131 Cal.App.4th 1491 (2005); McClintock v. West, 219 Cal.App.4th 540 (2013)
- Policy rationale for judicial and quasi‑judicial immunity – protection of judicial independence, finality of judgments, and encouragement of qualified court appointments.