Coastline RE Holdings Corp. v. Brillouet CA2/6

California Court of Appeal Sep 18, 2024 No. B330806Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court properly denied the motion to vacate attorneys' fee awards because the awards were authorized by the deed of trust and the law of the case doctrine precluded relitigation of the fee orders.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in denying a motion to vacate attorneys' fee awards as void.
Whether the law of the case doctrine bars the challenge to the attorneys' fee awards.
Whether the attorneys' fee provision in a deed of trust remains enforceable after a nonjudicial foreclosure sale.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Our previous opinion affirming the original attorneys’ fee order is binding pursuant to the “law of the case” doctrine.”

“We conclude the “law of the case” applies here.”

“We conclude the attorneys’ fee orders are not void.”

Filed 9/18/24 Coastline RE Holdings Corp. v. Brillouet CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

COASTLINE RE HOLDINGS 2d Crim. No. B330806 CORP., (Super. Ct. No. 56-2014- 00461981-CU-UD-VTA) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

PIERRICK BRILLOUET et al.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Pierrick Brillouet appeals an order after judgment denying his motion to vacate two sets of attorneys’ fee awards against him.1 He contends the attorneys’ fee orders are void for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm.

1 The appeal of the order by Brillouet’s wife, Yong C. Kim Brillouet, was dismissed after she defaulted.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY2 Pierrick and Yong C. Kim Brillouet (the Brillouets) bought a home from Alexander Low in 2009. They assumed Low’s obligations as Trustors under a construction loan secured by a deed of trust. The deed of trust listed the lender’s rights and remedies for default, including foreclosure by sale. It further provided: “Tenancy at Sufferance. If Trustor remains in possession of the Property after the Property is sold as provided above . . ., Trustor shall become a tenant at sufferance of Lender or the purchaser of the Property and shall, at Lender’s option, either (1) pay a reasonable rental for the use of the Property, or (2) vacate the Property immediately upon the demand of Lender.” The deed of trust also included an attorney fee provision, which stated in part: “If Lender institutes any suit or action to enforce any of the terms of this Deed of Trust, Lender shall be entitled to recover such sum as the court may adjudge reasonable as attorneys’ fees at trial and upon any appeal.” The original lenders transferred their interest in the loan to Coastline RE Holdings Corp. (Coastline). The Brillouets made no payments on the loan after October 2011. Following a notice of default, Coastline purchased the property in a nonjudicial foreclosure sale and served the Brillouets with a three-day notice to quit. When the Brillouets did not vacate the property, Coastline filed an action for unlawful detainer. Following a court trial, the court awarded possession to

Coastline RE Holdings Corp. v. Brillouet CA2/6

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

BALTODANO, J.

CODY, J.

AI Brief