Sarad v. Lorenz CA2/6

Filed 2/18/25 Sarad v. Lorenz CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

JOHN SARAD, 2d Civil No. B322452 (Super. Ct. No. 16CV05193) Plaintiff and Appellant, (Santa Barbara County)

v.

VALERIE STAFFORD ECKLES LORENZ, as Trustee, etc., et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Appellant John Sarad appeals from the order apportioning fees and costs of partition. He contends the trial court abused its discretion in apportioning respondents’ attorney fees and tax penalties to him. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In 2005, Sarad acquired a 34.29% ownership interest in property (Property) located in Orcutt. The rest of the interest was owned by respondents as follows: Sean Gabbert owned 15.2%

interest, Nora Minnies owned 15.2% interest, Thomas Gabbert owned a 15.2% interest, Stephen Gabbert owned a 15.2% interest, and Valerie Lorenz owned a 4.8% interest. From 2008 to 2013, the owners did not pay property taxes on the Property. In December 2013, the tax assessor’s office sent the owners a notice of delinquency, stating that if the past due property taxes were not paid in full, the Property would be subject to a tax sale. Sean Gabbert (Sean1) paid both his and Sarad’s share of the delinquent property taxes to prevent foreclosure. From then until 2015, Sean continued to pay his share and Sarad’s share of the property taxes without reimbursement from Sarad. After 2015, Sean could no longer afford to pay his and Sarad’s share. From 2016 to 2022, the owners stopped paying property taxes and incurred penalties and fees. In November 2016, Sarad sued the other owners for partition of the Property. He moved to appoint a referee to sell the Property, which the trial court denied. Subsequently, the parties agreed to sell the Property. The trial court ordered the Property to be sold pursuant to the terms of the parties’ agreement, with outstanding taxes to be paid through escrow and the remainder of the funds to be held in trust pending resolution of the division of funds. Sarad selected a realtor, Duke Parmelly. Respondents proposed another realtor, Richard Watkins. The Property appraised for $750,000. The trial court selected Parmelly as the realtor and ordered the Property to be sold at the appraised value with the proceeds to be placed in escrow. The parties later stipulated to increasing the listing price to $950,000.