Anderson v. Ciego CA2/3

Filed 8/21/24 Anderson v. Ciego CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

YVONNE T. ANDERSON, B322765

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. v. No. 18STCV04291)

ALLEN B. CIEGO et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Rupert A. Byrdsong, Judge. Affirmed. Ernest G. Ciego, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. Allen B. Ciego, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. Monica R. Morgan, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. Shelmadine M. Mariano, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.

Eddieson M. Ciego, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. Stone & Sallus, Jason M. Stone, and Scott J. Kalter, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ______________________________________________

INTRODUCTION Defendants and appellants Ernest G. Ciego, Allen B. Ciego, Monica R. Morgan, Shelmadine M. Mariano, and Eddieson M. Ciego appeal1 from various proceedings in this real property dispute. As appellants fail to brief any cognizable claims of error or support their contentions with citations to pertinent law and the record, they did not meet their burden of demonstrating error on appeal. Thus, we affirm the trial court’s orders. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2018, plaintiff and respondent Yvonne T. Anderson filed this action, challenging the validity of a quitclaim deed conveying to appellants title to a Los Angeles property owned by Anderson’s mother, Ella Ciego.2 Anderson alleged the quitclaim deed was invalid because appellants threatened, harassed, and pressured Ella to execute it. Ella was allegedly mentally incompetent and reliant on appellants to maintain her health and well-being. Anderson alleged that she solely owned the property because Ella agreed that upon Ella’s death, Ella would transfer the property to