Lee v. Rich CA4/3

Filed 7/19/13 Lee v. Rich CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

YUNG-SHEN STEVEN LEE,

Cross-complainant and Respondent, G047047

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2009-00271288)

HOWARD RICH, OPINION

Cross-defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from orders of the Superior Court of Orange County, Corey S. Cramin, Judge. Appeal dismissed. Law Office of Mitchel J. Ezer and Mitchel J. Ezer for Cross-defendant and Appellant. Law Offices of Niall Sweetnam, Niall Sweetnam; Oswald & Yap and Andrew H. Do for Cross-complainant and Respondent.

* * *

INTRODUCTION Howard Rich purchased a single-family residence at an execution sale conducted to satisfy a judgment against Yung-Shen Steven Lee. Rich was a third party purchaser; the plaintiff and judgment creditor was Spyglass Hill Community Association (the HOA), which managed the common interest development of which the residence was a part. After the sale, the trial court granted Lee’s motion to vacate the judgment on the ground it had been obtained by the HOA through fraud. Soon thereafter, the court granted Lee’s motion for restitution and cancelled the sheriff’s deed to Rich. Although Rich was not a party to the HOA’s judgment against Lee, Rich moved for reconsideration of the order vacating the judgment. The trial court denied the motion for reconsideration. Rich appeals from two orders: (1) the order denying his motion for reconsideration and (2) the order granting Lee’s motion for restitution and cancellation of the sheriff’s deed of sale. After the matter was briefed, we issued an order stating we were considering whether to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and inviting the parties to submit supplemental letter briefs addressing three issues of appellate jurisdiction. Both Rich and Lee filed supplemental letter briefs, which we have considered. We conclude we have no jurisdiction over this appeal and decline to treat it as a petition for writ of mandate. The appeal is therefore dismissed.