Pace v. Summerfield
Filed 5/23/06 Pace v. Summerfield CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 EIGHT
PHILLIP J. PACE, Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Respondent, v. JANET SUMMERFIELD, as Administrator, etc., Defendant, Cross-complainant and Appellant. | B177392 (c/w B179001) (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC270041) |
APPEALS from a judgment and orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Gregory W. Alarcon, Judge. Affirmed.
JohnL. Dodd & Associates and John L. Dodd for Defendant, Cross-complainant and Appellant.
Musick, Peeler & Garrett, Cheryl A. Orr; Ryan, Brosman & Hammers and Stephen G. Hammers for Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Respondent.
___________________________
These consolidated appeals arise from a judgment after jury and court trial of cross-claims regarding a promissory note, and from a postjudgment order determining costs and contractual attorney fees. Janet Summerfield, administrator of the estate of George Cojerean, appeals following a verdict that affirmed the position of plaintiff Phillip Pace, the promisor, regarding the proper amounts payable on the note, and concurrently rejected Summerfield's cross-complaint regarding it. Summerfield's further appeal challenges the court's postjudgment rulings awarding Pace and denying Summerfield attorney fees and costs, including the underlying determination that plaintiff was the prevailing party (Civ. Code., § 1717, Code Civ. Proc., § 1032).
We conclude that Summerfield's assignments of error are largely unmeritorious, and that two that are arguably valid do not involve prejudicial error. We therefore affirm the judgment and orders.[1]
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Viewed in accordance with the apposite, substantial evidence standard of review (Bowers v. Bernards (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 870, 872-874; Eisenberg et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Appeals and Writs (The Rutter Group 2005) ¶ 8:74, p. 8-32), the materialfacts underlying the judgment were as follows. In 1986, Pace, a real estate developer and investor, purchased two adjacent parcels of property in Montebello from Cojerean, for $600,000. The terms were $200,000 down and a $400,000 note, at 10 percent interest, with a two-year term. The note provided for monthly payments of interest only, comprising $3,333.33, beginning on January 31, 1987. After one year, Pace was to make a principal reduction payment of $200,000, and the remainder of principal and any unpaid interest would be due after two years. If a principal reduction were made in the second year, the interest payments would be reduced accordingly. The note provided that â€
