§ 640.Appointment of Person Agreed Upon By Parties As Referee; Person Appointed If Parties Do Not Agree

When a case gets referred out to a referee under §§ 638 or 639, someone still has to decide who that referee will be. Section 640 handles that mechanics, and it starts from consensus: if the parties agree on a person (or persons, up to three) to serve, the court appoints exactly that person or those people. Agreement is the simplest path, and the statute defers to it completely.

When the parties don't agree, subdivision (b) sets up a nomination process instead. Each side can submit up to three names of its own choosing, and the court appoints from among those nominees — again, no more than three — so long as there's no legal objection to a given name. If nobody submits any nominees at all, the court isn't stuck; it can appoint referees of its own choosing, or turn to a sitting court commissioner in the county where the case is pending and appoint that commissioner as referee instead.

Subdivision (c) protects parties who go along with the nomination process. Submitting nominees, or otherwise participating in how a referee gets picked under this section, doesn't waive a party's right to later object to whoever ends up appointed on the grounds § 641 or § 641.2 allow — things like bias, a disqualifying relationship to a party, or a lack of the qualifications a referee needs. A party can take part in the selection process and still challenge the outcome.