Rodriguez v. Haven Management Co.

Filed 1/9/07  Rodriguez v. Haven Management Co. CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

            APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County.  Ben T. Kayashima, Judge.  (Retired Judge of the San Bernardino Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.)  Affirmed.

            Victoria L. Richardson; Larry Rothman & Associates and Larry Rothman for Plaintiff and Appellant.

            Law Offices of Robert A. Walker and Brian Andenoro for Defendant and Respondent Brittany Park Townhomes Association.

            Law Offices of Edward W. Hess, Jr. and Edward W. Hess, Jr. for Defendant and Respondent Haven Management, Inc.

1.  Introduction

            Plaintiff Rudolfo Rodriguez filed an action for wrongful foreclosure of his Ontario townhouse against several defendants, including the homeowner's association, property manager, the property manager's attorney, and the bona fide purchaser at the foreclosure sale.  Defendants moved for summary judgment and the court granted their motions and entered judgment in their favor.  On appeal, plaintiff challenges the court's rulings and raises a number of contentions, alleging both procedural defects and substantive errors.  As to the substantive errors, plaintiff argues there were triable issues of material fact on his causes of action for damages and his request for an accounting.  Plaintiff also claims the court erred in awarding attorney's fees.  For the reasons set forth below, we reject plaintiff's claims and affirm the judgment.

2.  Factual and Procedural History

            After plaintiff failed to pay his association dues for about 15 months, his townhouse was sold at a non-judicial lien foreclosure sale to Arnulfo Mata, a bona fide purchaser.  On July 31, 2003, plaintiff filed an action for wrongful foreclosure against Brittany Park Townhomes Association (hereafter Brittany), Mata, Haven Management, Inc. (hereafter Haven), and Brittany's former attorney, Edward Hess, Jr.^[1]  Hess filed an interpleader action and deposited the proceeds from the foreclosure sale into an interest bearing account.

            In January of 2005, Mata and Brittany filed separate motions for summary judgment.  Hess and Haven joined in the motion.  The trial court heard Mata's motion on March 3, 2005.  The court rejected Hess and Haven's joinder in Mata's motion.  The court granted summary judgment for Mata.  On the same day, the court granted Brittany's oral request for a continuance.  After a few additional continuances, the court heard and denied Brittany's motion on June 8, 2005.

            Hess and Haven filed a motion for summary judgment on June 16, 2005.  Hess and Haven argued that plaintiff failed to provide sufficient factual or legal grounds for challenging the validity of the foreclosure sale.  Brittany joined in Hess and Haven's motion.  The trial court granted the motion as to the remaining defendants.  The court entered judgment accordingly.

3.  Appellant's Brief and the Appellate Record

            Before reviewing plaintiff's claims, we first must consider whether he has provided a record sufficient to permit such review.  Haven argues that plaintiff's claims should be deemed waived because of the inadequacy of the appellate record and the various deficiencies in plaintiff's opening brief.  As to the deficiencies in plaintiff's brief, Haven notes that plaintiff has failed to provide citations to the record and citations to the relevant legal authority.

            The appellant bears the burden of providing an adequate record for review.  Because the trial court's judgment is presumed to be correct, the appellant must overcome this presumption by presenting a record that affirmatively demonstrates error.  The appellant's failure to provide an adequate record on any issue requires that the issue be resolved against him.  (Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295-1296; People v. Seneca Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 75, 80.)

            In addition to an adequate record, the appellant also must support his claims with argument and, if possible, with citation to authority.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 14(a)(1)(B).)  â€