Janatpour v. Z&R Construction
Filed 5/25/06 Janatpour v. Z&R Construction CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
| MOJTABA JANATPOUR, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Z&R CONSTRUCTION COMPANY et al., Defendants; TAWFIK TAWFIK, Third Party Claimant and Appellant. |
A108985
(Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. C00-04909)
|
Appellant Tawfik Tawfik contends the trial court erred in concluding that appellant was not a bona fide purchaser of certain land, who would take title to the land free and clear of a judgment, writ of attachment, and lis pendens previously obtained by respondent Mojtaba Janatpour. The trial court's ruling is supported by substantial evidence. We affirm.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. The Original Lawsuit Filed by Janatpour
The origin of this appeal lies in a lawsuit filed by Mojtaba Janatpour against Ronen and Zaharia Herscu (hereafter, Herscu) who are not parties to this appeal. The original lawsuit pertained to claims of breach of contract against Herscu and his construction company, Z&R Construction Company, which had agreed to perform work on Janatpour's home. Herscu did not perform the work properly and did not pay certain subcontractors, resulting in mechanics' liens being placed on Janatpour's home.
Janatpour filed suit, alleging various causes of action. After a hearing, Janatpour obtained a pretrial writ of attachment against Herscu's real property, including the property in issue here. We refer to this property, located in Contra Costa County, as the Farm Bureau Road property. Thereafter, Janatpour obtained and recorded with the county clerk a lis pendens referencing the writ of attachment on the Farm Bureau Road property. Finally, Janatpour obtained a judgment against Herscu and filed an abstract of that judgment in the Superior Court of Contra Costa County.
B. The Farm Bureau Road Property is Later Sold to Tawfik.
Six months later, in anticipation of a sale of the Farm Bureau Road property to Tawfik, a preliminary title report was prepared, which referenced the abstract of judgment in favor of Janatpour. In order to persuade the title company to allow the sale to close, assurances were obtained from Herscu that the judgment had been satisfied. Appellant did not check with Janatpour or his counsel as to whether the judgment had in fact been satisfied. Tawfik, a mortgage broker, acknowledges in his reply brief that he â€
