Ringquest v. King
Filed 8/15/06 Ringquest v. King CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| JULIE A. RINGQUIST et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. SCOT KING, Defendant and Appellant. | G036034 (Super. Ct. No. 04CC03336) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, John M. Watson, Judge. Affirmed.
Law Offices of Steven R. Cameron, Steven R. Cameron for Defendant and Appellant.
Julie A. Ringquist, in pro. per., and Shirley A. Windsor, in pro. per., for Plaintiffs and Respondents.
Scot King appeals from the postjudgment order denying him attorney fees, which King contends he was entitled to as the prevailing party in this action. Because the record he has provided is inadequate, we must affirm the order.
FACTS
Shirley Windsor was the borrower on a promissory note secured by a second deed of trust on her residence. King became the beneficiary on the note and the deed of trust through assignment after he purchased them from the original lender. Following a series of uncompleted nonjudicial foreclosures initiated by King, Windsor and Julie Ringquist (who also lived at the residence) filed an action against King alleging various torts and violations of federal and state statutes concerning debt collection, unfair practices, and credit reporting. Ringquist and Windsor filed their first amended complaint on June 22, 2004. A second amended complaint was filed on October 19, 2004. King filed an answer to the second amended complaint on January 6, 2005, comprised of a general denial of â€
