Kim v. New Life Oasis Church

Filed 3/3/25 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

STEVEN C. KIM, B331916

Plaintiff and Appellant, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC722458 v.

NEW LIFE OASIS CHURCH et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michelle Williams Court and Colin P. Leis, Judges. Affirmed. Law Offices of Steven C. Kim & Associates, Steven C. Kim and Gabriel Colorado for Plaintiff and Appellant. The Milner Firm and Timothy V. Milner for Defendant and Respondent New Life Oasis Church. Fidelity National Law Group, David B. Owen and Kevin R. Broersma for Defendant and Respondent Bank of Hope. ____________________

Attorney Steven C. Kim took a lien against his client’s real property to secure his attorney fee. The trial court ordered Kim’s client to convey that property to fulfill a sales contract. Kim’s lien was obstructing the sale, and the trial court expunged Kim’s lien. Kim’s client appealed, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, no one sought review in the Supreme Court, and the judgment became final. That was in 2018. Three days later, Kim brought a new suit – this suit – against the same buyer of the same property. Kim’s new case sought a declaration that his expunged lien was valid and the result in the earlier suit was wrong. The buyer successfully invoked issue preclusion, and Kim now appeals this new defeat. We affirm because the first suit settled the issue. Kim cannot relitigate the loss of his lien. I This opinion is the seventh appellate decision in a long- running controversy among three churches over real property located at 1041 South Oxford Street in Los Angeles. This saga is now in its 14th year. We review the essentials. The Los Angeles Central Korean Evangelical Church joined, but then separated from, the Church of the Brethren, which is headquartered in Illinois. We will refer to the Los Angeles church as Central Korean. Over the years, Kim has always been Central Korean’s attorney. The separation of these two churches entailed deciding which owned what real property. Our colleagues in Division Four settled this question in their first two appellate opinions about the controversy. (See Pacific Southwest District of the Church of the Brethren v. Church of the Brethren, Inc. (June 23, 2014,