Cahuenga Partners v. Turmeko Properties

Filed 6/26/08 1538 Cahuenga Partners v. Turmeko Properties CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. William F. Fahey, Judge. Affirmed.

________

Michael J. Melton for Claimant and Appellant.

Law Office of David M. Brandon and David M. Brandon for Claimant and Respondent.

________

Michelle Cayton appeals from an order denying her claim to $27,500 of interpleaded funds. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW

Appellant Cayton and respondent TRE Holdings, LLC (TRE) each claimed the sum of $27,500 interpleaded into the action between 1538 Cahuenga Partners, LLC and Turmeko Properties, Inc. TRE based its claim on a judgment lien it held against Turmeko. Cayton based her claim on a $5,000 loan she made to Craig Harris, a creditor of Turmeko.

The court conducted a bench trial on the competing claims.

Cayton testified that she was employed by the City of Los Angeles as a management analyst. In 2003 or 2004, she loaned her friend Harris $5,000 in cash to invest in some type of real estate. Harris told her he would pay her back $30,000 after the real estate deals were completed. She could not recall where she obtained the $5,000 but she remembered some of it I had in the house. Cayton and Harris did not put their loan agreement in writing and Harris did not give Cayton a receipt for the $5,000. Harris never repaid any part of the $5000 loan.

Harris, who had been excluded from the courtroom during Caytons testimony, testified that Cayton had loaned him money for real estate investments on four occasions. The loans totaled $13,000. He confirmed that he never repaid any of those loans.

TRE then presented evidence in support of its claim.

After both sides rested, the court ruled from the bench and denied Caytons claim: This transaction that she [Cayton] purported to describe, I think, can best be charitably put as a sham transaction. I have no confidence at all in her testimony that she somehow had $5,000 laying around, and without any evidence of a writing, just provided this cash to Mr. Harris. [] And Harris and she, obviously, didnt have time to get their stories straight, because Harris testified that, in fact, she supposedly lent him $7,000 on one occasion and $2,000 on each of three other occasions for a total of $13,000. [] . . . [] Ultimately, I do find that the transaction was a sham one, and its not entitled to any equitable or indeed legal consideration by this court. [] So judgment will be entered on behalf of TRE holdings in the amount prayed for, $27,500[.]

DISCUSSION

The appellate brief filed by Caytons counsel, who also represented Turmeko and Harris in the trial court, attacks TREs entitlement to the interpleaded funds. But that issue is irrelevant to Caytons appeal. The trial court did not reject Caytons claim because it found that TRE had a superior one. Rather, it rejected Caytons claim because it did not believe Caytons and Harriss testimony that Cayton had any claim to the interpleaded funds. In a bench trial, the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony are the province of the court and, on appeal, the courts determination of the question of such credibility is conclusive upon us. (People v. Ramirez (1934) 1 Cal.2d 559, 563.)

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed. Respondent is awarded its costs on appeal.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

ROTHSCHILD, J.

We concur:

MALLANO, P. J.

VOGEL, J.

Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line attorney.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com