Fresno Lawyer – Randolf Krbechek

The recent decision in Orcilla v. Big Sur, Inc. (Feb. 11, 2016) __ Cal. App.4th __ continues the litigation fallout from the second depression (referred to in other parts of the country as the Great Recession).  In Orcilla v. Big Sur, the lender completed a nonjudicial foreclosure on the plaintiff’s residence.  The borrower sued to set aside the sale.  As discussed below, the court of appeal allowed the case to go forward based on a novel theory – unconscionability.

According to the court, “The Orcillas’ first claim is a cause of action to set aside the trustee’s sale.  The elements of an equitable cause of action to set aside a foreclosure sale are: (1) the trustee caused an illegal, fraudulent, or willfully oppressive sale of real property pursuant to a power of sale in a deed of trust; (2) the party attacking the sale was prejudiced or harmed; and (3) in cases where the trustor challenges the sale, the trustor tendered the amount of the secured indebtedness or was excused from tendering.”

Here are the basic facts regarding the loan.  “On May 9, 2006, Teodora obtained a $525,000 real property loan from Quick Loan.  She alone executed an adjustable rate note …  The Note further provided that Teodora’s initial monthly payments would be in the amount of $4,220.49. (In 2005 and 2006, Teodora’s monthly income was less than $3,000 and Virgilio [her husband] did not work.)”

The court framed plaintiff’s argument as follows: “The Orcillas allege the loan from Quick Loan was unconscionable because the loan payments exceeded their income; they have limited education and English proficiency; they did not understand the details of the transaction; and the loan documents were on standard, pre-printed forms in English.

“They allege the 2008 loan modification agreement also was unconscionable because the loan payments exceeded their income; they have limited education and English proficiency; and the loan documents were on standard, pre-printed forms in English.”

In a critical finding, the court stated “The Orcillas maintain that the disparity between the monthly loan payments and their income indicates that the loan and loan modification were overly harsh and one-sided.  We agree that the allegation that the monthly loan payments exceeded the couple’s income by more than $1,000 is sufficient to allege substantive unconscionability.”

Having started on the bridge to unconscionability, the court further held that plaintiffs were not required to plead tender of the past due amount to the lender.  “The Orcillas … allege the debt is invalid because the original loan and loan modification were unconscionable.  As discussed above, the allegations in the second amended complaint are sufficient to allege those agreements were unconscionable and thus unenforceable.”  Based thereon, court allowed the lawsuit to proceed.

This seems to be a peculiar decision.  Case law has long held that there is no fiduciary relationship between the lender and the borrower.  Rather, the relationship is considered to be an arms-length transaction.

By allowing a claim of unconscionability to creep in, the court suggests that the underlying loan and/or the modification could be demonstrated to be unconscionable.

The court cannot be suggesting that the borrowers do not owe the lender for their loan.  How does the court intend to rewrite the loan to render it “conscionable”?  The decision does not say, which provides little guidance to the trial judge.

Orcilla v. Big Sur, Inc. (Feb. 11, 2016) __ Cal. App.4th __

The law of evictions – titled as “unlawful detainer” in California – is a technical area. The law has statutory roots as far back as the Forcible Entry Act of 1381, which prohibited the use of self-help to retake possession of real property.

That remains an important concept in an action based on the unlawful detainer statutes.  The principal objective in an action for unlawful detainer is a judicial determination whether the plaintiff or defendant is entitled, at that time, to possession of the property.  Unlawful detainer does not focus on ownership, and case law holds that the issue of plaintiff’s title to the property cannot be litigated in an unlawful detainer proceeding.

So, the objective is up to obtain a judgment for unlawful detainer, coupled with issuance of a writ of possession.  By law, the writ of possession is delivered to the sheriff, who has the responsibility to serve and enforce the writ of possession, ultimately using the sheriff’s office to restore possession to the plaintiff.

Remember – no self-help.  The court issues a judgment for possession, together with a writ of possession.  The sheriff enforces the writ of possession and restores possession to the plaintiff.

Now mix in issues arising under bankruptcy law.  In In re Perl, __ F.3d __ (Jan. 8, 2016), the plaintiff in an unlawful detainer action obtained judgment and the court issued a writ of possession.  The writ was delivered to the sheriff.  Then, before the sheriff effected service, the tenant filed for bankruptcy.  Does the Sheriff’s actions in enforcing the writ of possession violate the automatic stay created under bankruptcy law?

“The question in this case is whether Perl had any remaining legal or equitable possessory interest in the property after … the state court fully adjudicated in the unlawful detainer proceedings.”  According to the 9th Circuit, the answer is No.

More specifically, “We conclude that under California law, entry of judgment and a writ of possession following unlawful detainer proceedings extinguishes all other legal and equitable possessory interests in the real property at issue.”

In so doing, the court overruled the decisions in In re Di Giorgio, 200 B.R. 664 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 1996) and In re Butler, 271 B.R. 867 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2002).

It gets more interesting when the court reviewed the statutory scheme.  The court found that “Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 415.46, no occupant of the premises retains any possessory interest of any kind following service of the writ of possession.”

Comment – Look up CCP § 415.46 for yourself.  It deals with the prejudgment claim to possession that can be asserted by third parties in possession of the property.  The court’s analysis is not supported by statute.

Thus, the court concluded that “The unlawful detainer judgment and writ of possession entered pursuant to California Code Civil Procedure § 415.46 bestowed legal title and all rights of possession upon Eden Place.  Thus, at the time of the filing of the bankruptcy petition, Perl had been completely divested of all legal and equitable possessory rights that would otherwise be protected by the automatic stay.  Consequently, the Sheriff’s lockout did not violate the automatic stay because no legal or equitable interests in the property remained to become part of the bankruptcy estate.”

Comment – I can’t agree.  Possession could be restored only by the sheriff acting pursuant to the writ of possession issued by the court.  As possession was restored by enforcement of a court order, I believe the act of restoring possession necessarily impacted the bankruptcy stay.

Here is a recent decision that is not a surprise under a traditional agent-principal analysis.  Even so, it has to sting, because the corporation loses twice – first, when it was defrauded by the former president, and second when the corporation was sued by shareholders for the diminished value of their securities.

The fact pattern is straightforward.  “ChinaCast founder and CEO Ron Chan embezzled millions from his corporation and misled investors through omissions and false statements – textbook securities fraud.”  These were not small losses: “From June 2011 through April 2012, Chan ‘transferred’ $120 million of corporate assets to outside accounts that were controlled by him and his allies.”

There’s your background.  The corporation, recognized by law as a separate “person,” lost millions of dollars through embezzlement by the former CEO.  At the same time, the former CEO made false representations on behalf of the corporation, which false representations caused damage to investors in the corporation.

Explained the court, “Throughout 2011, Chan signed SEC filings on behalf of ChinaCast and never disclosed the $120 million in transfers and other fraudulent activities afoot.”  (Of course Chan made false representations – otherwise, he would of been admitting his wrongdoing.)

The corporation brought forth a common-law defense: “The adverse interest doctrine may prevent a court from imputing knowledge of wrongdoing to an employer when the employee has abandoned the employer’s interests, such as by stealing from it or defrauding it.”

“The sole question on appeal is a purely legal one and an issue of first impression in this circuit:  Can Chan’s fraud be imputed to ChinaCast, his corporate employer, even though Chan’s looting of the corporate coffers was adverse to ChinaCast’s interests?”

The Ninth Circuit held that the corporation could be sued by investors based on the false representations, even though the corporation suffered its own separate injuries.  Explained the court, “we conclude that Chan’s fraudulent misrepresentations – and, more specifically, his scienter or intent to defraud – can be imputed to ChinaCast.

“Significantly, imputation is proper because Chan acted with apparent authority on behalf of the corporation, which placed him in a position of trust and confidence and controlled the level of oversight of his handling of the business.”

That’s certainly a difficult result.  Everyone suffered from the wrongful acts of Chan.  In an earlier time, the law probably would have allowed the losses to rest where it found them.  In our increasingly urban society, the law reaches out to protect injured persons, even when the defendant has already “paid once” for the injury.

In re ChinaCast Education Corporation Securities Litigation, __ F.3d __ (9th Cir. Oct. 23, 2015)

As the jurisdiction of small claims court has increased (now up to $10,000), attorneys are called on more frequently to assist on appeal.  (Ground rule – attorneys are not permitted to assist at the original trial, only on appeal.)

In Dorsey v. Superior Court (Oct. 22, 2015) __ Cal.App.4th __, “The small claims court dispute [ ] arose out of a condominium lease, which contain[ed] a prevailing party attorney fee provision.  [The trial court] entered judgment in favor of the tenants [ ] against the landlord [ ] in the principal amount of $1,560.”

This is where it gets interesting.  “After judgment, [the tenant] sought $11,497.50 in attorney fees as the prevailing parties under the attorney fee provision in the lease.  [The landlord] opposed the motion, asserting Code of Civil Procedure section 116.780(c) trumped the contractual attorney fees provision, limiting any award to $150.  The superior court awarded Crosier $10,373.”

Fort Sumter

Explained the court, “Small claims court exists so people with meritorious claims for small amounts may have those claims adjudicated without spending more on attorney fees than the claims are worth.”

Note – English law has recognized “small claims” jurisdiction for at least five centuries.  As the court discussed, “The small claims court system has been refined over hundreds of years with recurring attention from the courts, legal commentators, and the Legislature.”  It’s not like California invented small claims court.

Continued the court, “Section 116.780(c) reflects a legislative determination that a small claims appeal should require no more than minimal attorney time.  The small claims appeal procedure was intended to be integral to the legislative scheme for expeditious and cost-effective resolution of small claims.

“Therefore, as we explain, section 116.780(c) must be construed to override contractual attorney fee provisions and limit the attorney fee award here to $150.”

The court also discussed the unusual procedure of the case.  “The superior court’s judgment on a small claims appeal is ‘final and not appealable’ … However, if law is to be made settling a significant issue of small claims procedure, ‘the appellate courts must have jurisdiction to entertain petitions for extraordinary review in appropriate circumstances.’  Writ relief is appropriate here to review this significant issue in small claims law and to ensure uniform interpretation of the governing statutes.”

Bottom line – The court can award attorney’s fees up to $150.00 in small claims court.  Dorsey v. Superior Court (Oct. 22, 2015) __ Cal.App.4th __

The recent decision in Tribeca Companies, LLC v. First American Title Insurance Company (Aug. 26, 2015) ___ Cal.App.4th ___ reaches an unsurprising result – an escrowholder is not liable for damages when it delivers money to the owner of the funds.

If you continue to the end of the decision, however, you’ll find a peculiar analysis of the “fiduciary” obligations of an escrowholder, a relationship that is better defined by reference to the obligations of a bailee.

The facts were as follows.  “Tribeca is a California limited liability company formed in October 2005 by William Faidi, its sole shareholder. It is a San Francisco-based private equity investment firm that makes investments in ‘distressed’ real estate by purchasing and foreclosing on defaulted mortgage loans.”

An escrow was opened at First American.  Explained the court, “Tribeca and First American engaged in extensive negotiations regarding the form and content of the [escrow] instructions.  The negotiations continued for more than a month.”

Memo to litigants – If the contract you helped write is unclear, don’t expect the court to reform it in your favor.

The transaction fell through and First American returned the funds on hand to the person who deposited them.  A lawsuit followed.  “Tribeca’s claim of damages was based entirely on its contention that First American’s failure to transfer the escrow funds pursuant to its instructions, and to instead refund the money to Grishin, caused Faidi to lose the $1 million in liquidated damages.”

After reviewing the liquidated damages, the court turned to the escrowholder’s duties.  The key to the decision was a finding that “damages would not have been recoverable from the First American escrow account because, again, Grishin maintained ownership over those funds.”

More to the point, “the deposit of moneys in the escrow does not alter or change the ownership thereof.  First American held Grishin’s money in trust for his benefit, and no other party had any claim to his funds because he never designated another party as the beneficiary.

“Because Grishin retained ownership, he was entitled to withdraw the money regardless of whether another party contended he was liable in damages for failure to consummate a transaction.  It is established law that on failure of escrow the funds deposited with the escrow holder are returnable to the respective depositors.”

Query:  Why is this escrow described as being “fiduciary” in nature?  It more resembles a bailment than a fiduciary relationship.

Further straining its analysis, the court stated that “The breach of fiduciary duty can be based upon either negligence or fraud, depending on the circumstances.”  That’s a peculiar analysis of breach of fiduciary duty – to require the injured party to show negligence or fraud.

Tribeca Companies, LLC v. First American Title Insurance Company (Aug. 26, 2015) ___ Cal.App.4th ___

The federal courts continue to narrow the circumstances in which a person can be denied relief in bankruptcy court based on breach of fiduciary duties.  In Double Bogey, LP v. Enea, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. July 22, 2015), an unpaid creditor sought to invoke nondischargeability on the grounds that the debtor, as the alter ego of his corporation, owed fiduciary obligations to the unpaid creditor.

The Ninth Circuit disagreed, holding that “the mere fact that state law places two parties in a relationship that may have some of the characteristics of a fiduciary relationship does not necessarily mean that the relationship is a fiduciary relationship under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4).”

Explained the court, “partnership law clearly and expressly imposes trust-like obligations on partners, explicitly outlining partner’s fiduciaries duties and identifying the assets of the partnership as the trust res over which partners are fiduciaries.”

There is a different result with respect to corporations.  “California’s alter ego doctrine does not explicitly create a trust relationship, either by raising existing legal duties or otherwise … Instead of creating, enforcing, or expounding on substantive duties, California’s alter ego doctrine merely acts as a procedural mechanism by which an individual can be held jointly liable for the wrongdoing of his or her corporate alter ego.”

Thus, “A doctrine which merely supplies an additional judgment defendant after liability exists does not clearly and expressly impose trust-like obligations prior to the creation of that same liability.  Therefore, we cannot conclude, as a matter of federal law, that California’s alter ego doctrine establishes that a corporate debtor’s alter ego is a trustee in that strict and narrow sense required by the Code.”

As a result, the individual, despite a finding of alter ego liability under state law, was not denied his discharge in bankruptcy. “Common-law doctrines – like California’s alter ego doctrine – rarely impose the trust-like obligations sufficient to create a fiduciary relationship under Section 523(a)(4).  Indeed the kinds of trusts typically created by operation of law – constructive, resulting, or implied trusts – never satisfy Section 523(a)(4)’s rigorous requirements.”

Double Bogey, LP v. Enea, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. July 22, 2015)

Several categories of debt are excluded from relief under the Bankruptcy Code, meaning that a debtor cannot obtain a discharge for these debts.

In Bos v. Board of Trustees, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. 2015), the Ninth Circuit considered whether an employer’s contractual requirement to contribute to an employee benefits fund made the employer a fiduciary of unpaid contributions.  The court held that there was no such relationship for purposes of bankruptcy law.

The case involved claims by the Carpenters’ Union against Gregory Bos and his corporation.  Mr. Bos agreed that his corporation would be bound by the Carpenters’ Master Agreement.  The employer was required to make monthly payments to the union’s trust fund based on hours of work.

The essential facts were undisputed.  Mr. Bos had full control over the finances of his corporation.  Mr. Bos had the authority to determine whether payments were made to the union or to other creditors.  Even more, Mr. Bos signed a promissory note for the amount owed to the union.

Section 523(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code provides a debtor may not discharge debts due to “fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity, embezzlement, or larceny.”  Held the Ninth Circuit, “we have consistently held unpaid contributions by employers to employee benefit funds are not plan assets.”

Continuing with its “limited approach … in recognizing fiduciary status,” the Ninth Circuit held that unpaid contributions owed to the union were contractual obligations, not obligations arising from a fiduciary relationship involving control over property belonging to a third person.

The obligation to make payments “is in fact more appropriately classified as a contractual right to bring a claim against the employer for delinquent payments… Even if the language in the trust agreements in the promissory note sufficed to turn unpaid contributions into some form of plan assets, neither [the the corporation] nor [the individual debtor] had control over such asset prior to nonpayment.”

Therefore, the court held that the debtor did not act as a fiduciary under 11 U.S.C. section 523(a)(4).

Bos v. Board of Trustees, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. 2015)

Here’s a thorny problem.  The trial court found that the seller of a house lied to the buyer.  The buyer sought the remedy of rescission.  The trial court denied relief, in part because of events that occurred with the passage of time.

The court of appeal disagreed in Wong v. Stoler (June 23, 2015) __ Cal.App.4th ___, saying that equity favored the buyers.  The case will embolden aggressive plaintiffs’ attorneys.  Read on.

Let’s start with the facts.  The buyers purchased a 4,400 square foot house in May 2008 for $2.35 million.  The house was located at 2 Sudan Lane, San Carlos.  The sellers misrepresented the sewer hookup, and did not disclose that it was not a city connection.  The buyers first learned of the private sewer system in November 2008.

Here’s an important fact.  “By this time, much of the home was down to the studs as a result of the demolition work.”  By the time of trial, “the court reasoned that the [sellers] had purchased a new home over four years ago and had spent $100,000 in improving it, and the [buyers] had spent $300,000 improving the property and had removed a significant amount of the original landscaping.”

The court found that the sellers acted with reckless disregard in negligently misrepresenting the material facts about the true nature of the sewer system. “The court further found that the misrepresentations affected the property’s value and that the [buyers] would not have bought the property if they had known about the private sewer system.”

Nonetheless, the trial court determined that, given the “burden that rescission would place on the [sellers],” rescission was neither a fair nor appropriate remedy.

The court of appeal saw no reason not to handle the sellers with rough hands.  Explained the court,”Under California law, negligent misrepresentation is a species of actual fraud and a form of deceit … Thus, a single misstatement as to a material fact, knowingly made with intent to induce another into entering the contract, will, if believed and relied on by that other, afford a complete ground for rescission.”

Now comes the hammer. “Where defendant has been guilty of fraudulent acts or conduct which have induced the agreement between him and the plaintiff, courts of equity are not so much concerned with decreeing that defendant receive back [ ] identical property [ ] as they are in declaring that his nefarious practices shall result in no damage to the plaintiff.”

“Persons who attempt to secure profits by deceitful means may not confidently expect to receive special consideration from courts of equity … If his fraudulent acts have resulted in disastrous financial consequences to himself, it is no one’s fault but his own, and he must sustain the necessary inconveniences thereby entailed.”

Ouch.  “We recognize that changes have been made to the property and years have transpired.  But the changes in the property were commenced before the [buyers] learned of the [sellers’] misrepresentations, and much of the time that has elapsed has been due to the [sellers] contesting the rescission … While untangling the deal may not be easy, we are unaware of any insurmountable obstacles.”

“Thus, we remand the case to the trial court to effectuate the Wongs’ rescission … The trial court’s goal [ ] in fashioning this remedy must be, to the extent possible, to restore the Wongs to their status quo ante.”

Is this practical?  The transaction occurred in May 2008.  The trial court judgment was entered in early 2013, and the decision of the court of appeal was entered in June 2015.  How is the trial court going to be able to unwind seven years?  How are the parties going to unwind seven years?  Should we simply refer to the property as “Bleak House”?

When you read the cases, it’s hard not to reach the conclusion that the courts view a liability release agreement with distrust. A new high water mark in this analysis was reached in the recent decision in Etelvina Jimenez v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. (June 9, 2015) __ Cal.App.4th ___. In Jimenez, the court relied on a manager’s non-verbal gestures to defeat a release from liability.

Etelvina Jimenez joined a 24 Hour Fitness health club in Sacramento in 2009. In 2011, she suffered severe head injuries when she fell backwards off a moving treadmill and hit her head on a nearby exercise machine.

When plaintiff joined the gym, she was required to sign a membership agreement. However, Ms. Jimenez could not read or speak English. The manager “pointed to his computer screen to a figure, $24.99, indicating the membership fee, and made pumping motions with his arms like he was exercising.”

According to the court, plaintiff understood the “physical gestures to mean that if she paid that amount, she could use the facility.” Added the court, the manager “did not point out the release to Etelvina or make any other indications about the scope of the agreement aside from his gestures mimicking exercise and the fee.”

Etelvina believed she signed an agreement only to pay the monthly fee of $24.99.

The court held that the act of pointing at the computer screen and making a pumping motion could constitute a nonverbal gesture giving rise to a claim for affirmative misrepresentation.

Let’s say that one more time: the contract was written in English. It contained a release from liability clause. Plaintiff did not speak or read English. Nobody compelled plaintiff to sign up at 24 Hour Fitness – she could have chosen other gyms. The manager pointed at the dollar figure on his screen and “made pumping motions with his arms.” Based on this non-verbal communication, the court held that a reasonable jury could infer a misrepresentation by the manager, thereby negating the release agreement.

Explained the court, “under the circumstances, already ripe for misrepresentation overreaching, [the manager’s] gestures and pointing may well have misrepresented the nature of the document [plaintiff] signed. This is an inherently factual question for a jury to decide.”

For the life of me, I cannot understand how pointing at a dollar figure on a computer screen and pumping one’s arms could be construed as misrepresenting the terms of a contract that plaintiff was unable to read. Perhaps the legislature should revisit this issue. Perhaps gym membership contracts, like auto sale contracts, should have mandatory Spanish versions for Spanish-speaking customers.

But that’s a question for the legislature, not for the courts. Here, we have a court making a policy decision because it simply did not want to enforce the release clause.

The law is filled with rules.  Rules give guidance to judges.

Sometimes the legal result does not square with the facts.  In Estate of Britel (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 127, “the court admitted into evidence a DNA test showing a 99.9996 percent probability that the decedent (Amine Britel) was A.S.’s (the child’s) father.”  Yet the court held that the child was not entitled receive any property under the law of intestate succession.  How did this happen?

When a person dies without a will, the judge will look to the law of intestate succession to determine who will receive the decedent’s property.  Explained the court of appeal, “Intestate succession is governed entirely by statute.  The heirs of a person are those whom the law appoints to succeed at the decedent’s death.”

“As relevant here, if there is no surviving spouse or domestic partner of an intestate decedent, the intestate estate passes to the decedent’s ‘issue’ … For the purpose of determining intestate succession, the relationship of parent and child exists between a person and the person’s natural parents, regardless of the marital status of the natural parents.”

Sounds promising for the child.  But here is where the argument ran ashore.  The mother, Jackie Stennett, “contends biological parents are, by definition, natural parents within the meaning of [Probate Code] section 6450.  Not so.”

Instead, when child born out of wedlock wants to show he is the natural child of a man who died without leaving a will, the statute requires “clear and convincing evidence that the father has openly held out the child as his own.”  A paternity test administered after death is not sufficient by itself.

Explained the court, “We conclude [the statute] requires an affirmative representation of paternity that is unconcealed and made in open view.  But although the representation must be a public one, in the sense of being made in open view, the statute does not require an announcement to the world, an official action, or an affectionate fatherly intent.  Each case depends upon its own circumstances.”

The court held that Jackie Stennett [the mother] failed to prove “that Amine openly held out A.S. as his own child.”  Hence, the legal result, which does not square with the facts.