Filed 2/7/20 Alva v. Zamora CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

GEORGE ALFREDO ALVA,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

LEOBARDO ZAMORA, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

B284573

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. BC583255)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Terry A. Green, Judge. Affirmed.

Leobardo Zamora, Jr., in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.

Law Offices of Stanton Lee Phillips and Stanton Lee Phillips for Plaintiff and Respondent.

——————————

 

Leobardo Zamora, Jr., appeals from a judgment in favor of George Alfredo Alva quieting title to real property in the parties as tenants in common and declaring Alva’s interest to be subordinate to the interest of the holder of a trust deed secured by the property. Zamora contends that the evidence does not support the judgment and that the trial court erred by disallowing the testimony of a witness to interpret the financing documents. As Zamora has failed to demonstrate reversible error, we affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND

I. The dispute

Alva sued both Zamora and Pacific Union Financial, LLC, d/b/a/ ClearVision Funding, the lender holding a trust deed that secures a $519,983 loan made to Zamora. Alva’s complaint sought to quiet title to property on West 28th Street in Los Angeles (the property), declaratory relief, and enforcement of an express, constructive, or resulting trust. Zamora’s answer alleged that Zamora was the sole owner of the property.

II. The evidence

Viewing the evidence according to the usual rules (Morgan v. Imperial Irrigation Dist. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 892, 916 (Morgan)), it shows that both Alva and Zamora have degrees in business administration. They purchased the property on November 4, 2008 as co-equal partners, in an investment plan to lease it out. They each took an undivided 50 percent interest in the property, made equal down payments, and invested equally in renovations. By June 2009, the property was fully leased and turning a profit of approximately $4,000 a month. Tenants deposited the rents into a bank account held jointly by Alva and Zamora. Alva paid himself and Zamora each 50 percent of the profits. Alva and Zamora had a good relationship. They were friends and successful partners, until February 2014.

The problem began in May 2013. Alva wanted to invest in other real estate. However, it was difficult for debtors holding numerous mortgages, such as he, to obtain favorable interest rates. Alva’s plan was to refinance the loan on the property to lower the payments and to take his name off the property’s deed to keep his own credit report clean. To do this, he proposed to Zamora to transfer the property to a limited liability company (LLC) with Zamora as the sole member, and to add Alva to the LLC as a 50 percent member after the refinance closed. According to Alva, Zamora orally agreed to the plan but never reviewed or signed the LLC documents Alva sent him.

Instead, Zamora informed Alva that he wanted to delay putting the property into an LLC. Zamora wanted to purchase a second parcel and did not want to show that he owned half of the property while his name was on 100 percent of the mortgage. Alva agreed to stop pressing Zamora to finalize the LLC until Zamora purchased another property. He also agreed to cease taking his profit distributions as of February 2014 so that Zamora could show a buildup of cash for that purchase.

Alva also agreed to pay the $18,300 in refinance costs. He explained that when down payments are made with money acquired from friends or family, banks require confirmation that such money is a gift, rather than another loan. Accordingly, included in the refinance documents for the property is a Federal Housing Administration (FHA) gift letter, exhibit 104, signed by Alva on April 26, 2013 stating that Alva gave Zamora a $18,300 gift as a family friend toward the refinance of the property.

After the refinance closed in the spring of 2013, Zamora continued to treat Alva as a 50 percent partner.

In December 2014, Zamora’s escrow in the purchase of his second property closed. Over the early months of 2015, Alva and Zamora discussed accounting for the property and the $29,000 that had accumulated during the period Alva had refrained from taking profit distributions. Alva was concerned that Zamora might renege on the deal because Zamora had not responded to requests to review and sign the LLC agreement.

Zamora complained that the accumulation of money in the bank account had put him in a higher tax bracket and made him responsible for a $4,000 health insurance policy under the Affordable Care Act. Zamora wanted to deduct these increased expenses from Alva’s share of the profits. Zamora also decided to convert Alva’s share into a property management salary.

Upset, Alva withdrew the $29,000 and notified Zamora. Alva refused to pay Zamora’s health insurance bill and made no adjustments to the distribution amount. Zamora’s health insurance payment and increased tax liability led to the end of the good relationship between the two men. Although Alva continued to pay the expenses and remit to Zamora his 50 percent of the profit, Zamora ceased cashing the checks from Alva in November 2016.

Zamora testified at the trial in May 2017 that Alva gifted him Alva’s entire half-interest, including equity, and so Zamora owned the property outright. As proof of this, Zamora cited the refinance documents showing that Zamora was debtor and owner of the property, and the gift letter. Zamora acknowledged he did not recall Alva ever saying he was making a gift of the whole property.

Alva testified it was never his intention to make a gift of his entire half of the property. Alva is not in the business of giving gifts of 50 percent of real estate worth $400,000. That is “just . . . ridiculous,” he testified. He explained that had the transaction been a gift, then Zamora would have conducted the refinance on his own, without Alva’s involvement and money, and without keeping Alva informed of the process. He further testified that for two years following the refinance, Zamora made no objection to Alva taking his half of the monthly profit and sending Zamora monthly checks. And, Zamora neither said nor wrote anything to the effect that Alva did not own the property.

III. The judgment

The trial court found that Zamora’s “theory that—that Mr. Alva gave you his interest in this property as a gift is nonsense. . . . [¶] There is—there is no evidence here, under any definition of evidence, that this was intended to be a gift to you.” (Italics added.) The court questioned Zamora’s credibility and stated, “I find that position simply—the position that this is a gift simply bizarre. It is one in which, now that we’ve had this trial, not only is illogical, but is not sustained by the evidence.” (Italics added.)

The trial court entered judgment establishing that Alva had an undivided one-half (50 percent) interest in the property as a tenant in common with Zamora. The court also ruled that Alva’s interest in the property was subordinate to the trust deed securing the refinanced promissory note, and that Alva and Zamora were jointly and severally liable on the note and deed of trust. Zamora unsuccessfully moved for reconsideration, and filed his timely appeal from the judgment.

DISCUSSION

Zamora’s first contention seems to be that the judgment is not supported by the evidence. Zamora asserts that his testimony and exhibits disproved Alva’s testimony and exhibits, and show instead that Alva intended to give the entire property to Zamora as a gift. Yet, the trial court questioned Zamora’s credibility and found his position to be nonsense, illogical, and bizarre and unsupported by the evidence. We do not reweigh the evidence, redetermine the credibility of the witnesses, or resolve conflicts in the testimony. We must accept all evidence supporting the successful party, disregard all contrary evidence, and draw all reasonable inferences to uphold the judgment. (Morgan, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 916, italics added.) After disregarding Zamora’s testimony and his evidence, the only remaining evidence is that of Alva, which supports the judgment because it shows that the only gift Alva made to Zamora was for $18,300 in refinance costs and that the conduct of both parties throughout reflected their mutual intent to treat the property as equally owned.

Zamora next appears to contend that the trial court erred in disallowing an underwriter and account executive to testify to interpret exhibits 103, 104, 128, and 133. Exhibit 103 is the instructions by North American Title Company for recording a deed. Exhibit 128 is from chapter 5, section B of a United States Department of Housing and Urban Development publication listing the acceptable sources of borrower funds. Exhibit 133 contains closing documents for the refinance. Exhibits 103, 128, and 133 are clear as to their meaning and so no parol evidence was necessary to interpret them. (See Cunningham v. Southland Constr. Co. (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 722, 726.)

Exhibit 104 is the FHA’s gift letter signed by Alva. It unambiguously shows that on April 26, 2013 Alva made a gift to Zamora of exactly $18,300 toward the refinance of the property. The trial court properly declined to consider irrelevant extrinsic evidence to vary or contradict the gift letter’s clear and unambiguous language. Courts may not consider extrinsic evidence to vary or contradict the clear and unambiguous terms of a written, integrated contract. (Brown v. Goldstein (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 418, 432.)

The final contention seems to be that the trial court erred in finding Zamora dragged his feet about signing the LLC agreement. Zamora insists that there is no evidence of any LLC agreement drafted by Alva with Zamora’s signature on the document, and that Zamora was clear that he never agreed to sign any LLC agreement presented by Alva. Just so. Zamora did not sign the LLC agreement which is what led to this lawsuit. Nonetheless, the evidence credited by the trial court shows it was always both parties’ intent to hold the property equally. And, the trial court found nothing in the evidence to support Zamora’s belief that Alva intended to give a gift to Zamora of his entire interest in the property, valued at well over $400,000. There was no error.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. George Alfredo Alva is awarded his costs on appeal.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

DHANIDINA, J.

We concur:

EDMON, P. J.

EGERTON, J.

Parties and Attorneys
Alva v. Zamora
Division 3
Case Number B284573
Party Attorney

George Alfredo Alva : Plaintiff and Respondent
Stanton Lee Phillips
Law Offices of Stanton Lee Phillips
433 N. Camden Dr.
Suite 970
Beverly Hills, CA 90210-4409

Leobardo Zamora, Jr. : Defendant and Appellant
1438 W. 28th Street
Los Angeles, CA 90007 Pro Per