Hogan v. DeAngelis Construction CA1/2

Filed 4/25/25 Hogan v. DeAngelis Construction CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

RONALD HOGAN, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, A166172 v. DEANGELIS CONSTRUCTION, (Sonoma County INC., et al., Super. Ct. No. SCV-230846) Defendants and Respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs Ronald and Victoria Hogan (the Hogans) appeal from an order denying their motion for an award of legal fees and costs against defendants DeAngelis Construction, Inc., DeAngelis-Pope Homes, Marvin DeAngelis, and Gary Pope (collectively the Developers or defendants), which was filed 12 years after the judgment was entered and more than three years after the judgment was deemed satisfied. We affirm. BACKGROUND A Brief History of this Litigation The parties are familiar with the history of this case, which we briefly described in 2019 as follows. In 2002, the Hogans sued the Developers, “asserting claims related to the Hogans’ purchase of a home in 2000. . . . [T]he Hogans alleged the home was defective in various ways and defendants failed

1

to disclose material facts about the home. [This lawsuit] resulted in a trial court order rescinding the purchase agreement for the home, a jury trial on consequential damages, a judgment (sometimes referred to as the ‘modified amended judgment’), many appeals, and six appellate decisions by this court.1 Most recently, in 2018, we ordered the trial court to deem the judgment satisfied as to the Developers.” (Hogan v. Deangelis Construction, Inc. (A152771, Aug. 30, 2019) [nonpub. opn.] 2019 WL 4127270.)2 Later, in 2022, we wrote, “We do not repeat the history of this case, which the parties are familiar with and which is set out in our prior decisions. In brief, the parties’ litigation over the rescission of a contract to purchase a home (the Gardenview property) resulted in a modified amended judgment filed by the trial court in April 2010, and conflict over executing this judgment has led to years of litigation.” (Hogan v. Deangelis Construction, Inc. (A157615, Jan. 28, 2022) [nonpub. opn.] 2022 WL 263290.) In short, the Hogans filed this lawsuit in 2002; following a jury trial and multiple appeals by the Hogans, the final judgment was filed in 2010; and the judgment was satisfied as to the Developers in 2018. In 2007, the trial court determined there was no “ ‘ “prevailing party” under any definition.’ ” In Hogan I, we affirmed this determination, noting,