Penrock v. King

Filed 5/31/06 Penrock v. King CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.

James R. Dunn, Judge. Affirmed.

Patrick C. Stacker & Associates and Patrick C. Stacker for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.

_________________________

Appellants William Penrock (Penrock) and Jewell Morgan (Morgan) appeal an order distributing surplus proceeds (the proceeds) from a trustee's sale to respondent Roman E. King, Jr. (King). Pursuant to Civil Code section 2924j, subdivision (d), Parkfield Ventures, Inc. was notified that it had to file any claim it might have to the proceeds within 30 days of June 29, 2004. Penrock and Morgan, who assert an ambiguous connection to Parkfield Ventures, Inc., did not file any kind of claim by the 30-day deadline, either individually or on behalf of Parkfield Ventures, Inc. Nonetheless, they argue on appeal that the trial court should have adjudicated the individual claim Morgan filed on November 24, 2004, even though the trial court had already ordered the proceeds distributed to King. According to Penrock and Morgan, Morgan was excused from filing a timely claim because he was not given notice of King's October 20, 2004 ex parte application for distribution of the proceeds, or the trial court's subsequent decision to take that application under submission and consider granting it. This argument is moot. Penrock and Morgan do not contend that the order distributing the proceeds to King is void. Notably, the record demonstrates that Penrock and Morgan lack standing to appeal because they were not aggrieved. The claim and this appeal should have been prosecuted by Parkfield Ventures, Inc., the entity that ostensibly shared an equitable interest in the proceeds with King. The problem is that Penrock and Morgan did not adequately discuss the issues. By giving this appeal short shrift, Penrock and Morgan waived it. Having found no error, we affirm.

FACTS

Premier Trust Deed Services, Inc., (Premier) sold encumbered property located at 7001 5th Avenue in the City of Los Angeles (7001 5th Avenue) pursuant to the provisions of a deed of trust. After paying the trustee's expenses and the underlying obligation, a $64,045.93 surplus remained. Premier deposited the proceeds with the trial court pursuant to Civil Code section 2924j, subdivision (c) based on its belief that it could not determine the priority amongst the competing claimants and potentially interested parties. It served King, Imad Barkett, Eric Wright, Mia Wong, Michael Williams and Parkfield Ventures, Inc., with notice of the deposit and their right to assert claims to the proceeds.

On July 29, 2004, King filed a claim with the trial court. He stated that he was the last owner of 7001 5th Avenue and had a right to 100 percent of the proceeds. In his supporting declaration he averred that he did not know of any individuals or entities with an adverse claim. King filed an ex parte application for distribution of the proceeds. His ex parte application was denied. The trial court stated that it would examine the issue and determine whether the funds could be disbursed to King. He was ordered to give notice to all interested parties. On November 15, 2004, the trial court entered the following order: â€