legal news


Register | Forgot Password

Namco Capital Group v. Rafi

Namco Capital Group v. Rafi
04:07:2006

Namco Capital Group v. Rafi


Filed 4/5/06 Namco Capital Group v. Rafi CA2/3




NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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





SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT





DIVISION THREE











NAMCO CAPITAL GROUP, INC.,


Plaintiff and Respondent,


v.


MOJGAN RAFI et al.,


Defendants and Appellants.



B174889


(Super. Ct. No. BC243342)



APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Rodney E. Nelson, Judge. Reversed and remanded with direction.


Mazur & Mazur, Janice R. Mazur and William E. Mazur, Jr. for Defendants and Appellants.


Fischer, Zisblatt & Kiss, John David Fischer and Benjamin Kiss for Plaintiff and Respondent.


INTRODUCTION

Defendants and appellants, Mojgan Rafi, Hercel Talasazan, Saeed Kashefi, Wendy Kashefi, Mahvash Rahmanian, and Scott Rahmanian (collectively defendants) appeal a judgment in favor of plaintiff and respondent, Namco Capital Group, Inc. (Namco) following a court trial.


We reverse and remand. Substantial evidence did not support the trial court's determination of the amount that Namco owed to defendants pursuant to the promissory note at issue in this case. In addition, the trial court abused its discretion by finding Namco to be the prevailing party and awarding Namco attorney fees.


FACTUAL BACKGROUND


This case involves a dispute over the amount due for final payment of a promissory note.


1. The Original Note and Deed of Trust


On July 31, 1990, non-parties Saeed Farkhondehpour and Morad Neman borrowed the principal amount of $625,000. They executed a promissory note (the original note), in favor of non-party Foothill Thrift & Loan (Foothill).


The original note was secured by a July 31, 1990 deed of trust in favor of Foothill. The deed of trust established a lien on real property located at 606 East 8th Street, Los Angeles, California (the property). Foothill subsequently assigned the note and deed of trust to non-party Imperial Thrift & Loan Association (Imperial).[1]


2. Namco Becomes the Property Owner


Foreclosing on a second deed of trust, Namco became the owner of the property subject to the July 31, 1990 deed of trust, which had first priority. Namco assumed in writing the obligations of the borrowers, Saeed Farkhondehpour and Morad Neman, pursuant to the original note.


3. The Modification Agreement On December 16, 1993, Namco and Imperial executed a modification agreement, modifying Namco's obligations under the original note. The modification agreement provided that as of December 5, 1993, the unpaid principal balance was $400,000 after the payment of a designated principal reduction amount.


The modification agreement provided that the maturity date of the note would be August 5, 2000. The modification agreement stated that applicable interest rate would equal 3.5 percentage points above the announced reference rate of Bank of America.


The modification agreement also provided for a payment schedule as follows: â€





Description A decision regarding modification agreement of trust,calculation of the amount due and owing under the note as modified.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale