BARBARA J NAKATOMI AS A TRUSTEE OF THE MIYAMOTO/NAKATOMI FAMILY TRUST DATED DECEMBER 27, 1994, et al. vs NAKATOMI, et al.

24CV001530: BARBARA J NAKATOMI AS A TRUSTEE OF THE MIYAMOTO/NAKATOMI FAMILY TRUST DATED DECEMBER 27, 1994, et al. vs NAKATOMI, et al. 09/03/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Nunc Pro Tunc to Correct Clerical Mistakes in Department 16C

Tentative Ruling

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiffs Barbara J. Nakatomi; Debra T. Nakatomi and Robert Ken Miyamoto, trustees of the Miyamoto/Nakatomi Family Trust dated December 27, 1994, as the separate property of Debra T. Nakatomi; and Richard Schlesinger and Judy Nakatomi, trustees of the Richard Schlesinger and Judy Nakatomi Revocable Trust’s (“Plaintiffs”) motion for an order nunc pro tunc to correct clerical mistakes is UNOPPOSED but DENIED. This is a partition action related to a residential property in Sacramento.

Plaintiffs filed their complaint against Douglas J. Nakatomi (“Defendant”) on January 29, 2024. This Court appointed Chad Phillips (“Referee”) as partition referee to sell the property and apportion the proceeds. The Referee sold the Property on January 23, 2026, with net proceeds realized in the amount of $440,709.68. The Court presently holds these funds in trust for the parties. On June 25, 2026, this Court approved the Referee’s final accounting, approved the proposed distribution, and discharged the Referee.

As proposed by the Referee, the Court ordered distribution of the proceeds as follows: a. The sum of $134,411.17 shall be distributed to Barbara J. Nakatomi. b. The sum of $140,861.17 shall be distributed to Debra T. Nakatomi, and Robert K. Miyamoto, trustees of the Miyamoto/Nakatomi Family Trust dated December 27, 1994, as the separate property of Debra T. Nakatomi. c. The sum of $156,927.17 shall be distributed to Richard Schlesinger and Judy Nakatomi, trustees of the Richard Schlesinger and Judy Nakatomi Revocable Trust. d.

The sum of $6,345.17 shall be distributed to Douglas J. Nakatomi.

Plaintiffs now move for an order nunc pro tunc pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d), to correct a purported clerical error in the June 25 Order. Plaintiffs note that the sum of the amounts in the June 25 Order is $2,165 less than the total sale proceeds. (Cruz Decl. ¶ 5.) Plaintiffs agree that this additional amount should be distributed to Douglas J. Nakatomi (Ibid.) and request a corrected order that also includes each of the parties’ mailing addresses. Plaintiffs’ motion is denied.

The Court did not make a clerical error. Section 473, subdivision (d) allows a court to “correct clerical mistakes in its judgment or orders as entered, so as to conform to the judgment or order directed.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (d) [emphasis added].) This statute allows a court to correct clerical errors but does not provide authority for a court to change an order “if in fact the order made was that intended to be made.” (Bell v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1138, 1144.) “Unless the challenged portion of the judgment

24CV001530: BARBARA J NAKATOMI AS A TRUSTEE OF THE MIYAMOTO/NAKATOMI FAMILY TRUST DATED DECEMBER 27, 1994, et al. vs NAKATOMI, et al. 09/03/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Nunc Pro Tunc to Correct Clerical Mistakes in Department 16C

was entered inadvertently, it cannot be changed post judgment under the guise of correction of clerical error.” (Tokio Marine & Fire Ins. Corp. v. Western Pacific Roofing Corp. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 110, 117.) The Court entered the order it intended to make. The Referee’s Declaration Providing Final Accounting, filed February 18, 2026, proposes the distributions shown above. The Court’s June 25 Order thus accurately reflected the Referee’s Declaration and the Order submitted by Plaintiffs. This is not an instance of the Court’s mistake, and the Court cannot correct the error under Section 473, subdivision (d).

The Court agrees that there is an error, but it was not the Court’s error. In reviewing the Referee’s Declaration, it is evident that the missing $2,165 is made up in two portions. First, when the Referee attempted to divide the net proceeds equally among the parties, he made a mathematical mistake. The Referee recorded the amount as $110,117.42. This is an error. An accurate division of $440,709.68 in equal fourths is $110,177.42, a difference of $60 per person, for $240 total. Further, the Referee’s Accounting lists a debit against each party in the amount of $481.25 ($1,925 total) labeled “fence fee.” This debit, however, was not taken out of the total amount remitted to the Court in trust, and the status of the “fence fee” is unknown to the Court.

Together, the arithmetic error ($240) and the fence fee ($1,925) make up the missing $2,165. As this discussion shows, Plaintiffs’ suggested solution on this motion, apportioning the entire $2,165 to Douglas Nakatomi, does not reflect the Referee’s intended distribution and thus is not fair or equitable. Instead, each of the parties’ distributions must be appropriately adjusted, and the status of the “fence fee” must be clarified. For these separate reasons, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion.

Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED without prejudice to a motion made under the proper statutory authority to relieve the parties from mistake. Such a motion will likely need to be supported by an amended final accounting or declaration from the Referee clarifying the nature of the “fence fee.” This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV001530: BARBARA J NAKATOMI AS A TRUSTEE OF THE MIYAMOTO/NAKATOMI FAMILY TRUST DATED DECEMBER 27, 1994, et al. vs NAKATOMI, et al. 09/03/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Nunc Pro Tunc to Correct Clerical Mistakes in Department 16C

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Department 16C Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-1475 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 16C Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/j/16030877014 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 160 3087 7014. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-servicestranscripts. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV001530: BARBARA J NAKATOMI AS A TRUSTEE OF THE MIYAMOTO/NAKATOMI FAMILY TRUST DATED DECEMBER 27, 1994, et al. vs NAKATOMI, et al. 09/03/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Nunc Pro Tunc to Correct Clerical Mistakes in Department 16C

Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.