Binford Road v. Beste CA1/5

Filed 3/23/26 Binford Road v. Beste CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

BINFORD ROAD LLC, Plaintiff and Respondent, A172469 v. PAUL DEN BESTE, (Marin County Defendant and Appellant. Super. Ct. No. CIV2104251)

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 This is an appeal from an order relating to the disposal of vehicles held in receivership (receivership order) after the trial court granted summary adjudication in favor of plaintiff, Binford Road LLC, on its quiet title cause of action. Defendant, Paul Den Beste, proceeding in propria persona, contends the receivership order is void as a matter of law.2 For reasons set forth post, we affirm.

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.) We provide a limited factual summary because our opinion is unpublished and the parties know, or should know, “the facts of the case and its procedural history . . . .” (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851.) 2 Defendant is designated a vexatious litigant in California pursuant to

Code of Civil Procedure section 391, subdivision (b). However, because defendant did not initiate the underlying lawsuit, he was permitted to file

1

Generally speaking, the “trial court appointing the receiver has broad power to prescribe and, as necessary, change the manner in which property is to be sold.” (People v. Stark (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 184, 205.) On appeal, as a “fundamental principle of appellate procedure,” we presume the trial court’s order is correct. (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608–609.) Given this presumption, “the burden is on an appellant to demonstrate, on the basis of the record presented to the appellate court, that the trial court committed an error that justifies reversal of the judgment.” (Id. at p. 609.) As a “ ‘ “necessary corollary to this rule,” ’ ” we affirm if the appellant fails to provide any demonstration of error. (Ibid.) Such is the case here. Defendant represents himself in this appeal. While the technical requirements of the appellate process may be difficult to navigate for those without legal training, a self-represented party is nonetheless “treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater, consideration than” a party represented by counsel. (Elena S. v. Kroutik (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 570, 574.) Accordingly, defendant, just as all appellants, must comply with the mandatory rules of appellate procedure, including the rules requiring the filing of a brief containing a fair recitation of the facts and a reasoned argument, grounded in relevant facts and pertinent legal authority, to support any claim of error. (Berger v. California Ins. Guarantee Assn. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 989, 1007; L.O. v. Kilrain (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 616, 620.) Defendant has not complied with these rules. His main argument appears to be that the trial court’s receivership order is void as a matter of law because it was issued by the Marin County Superior Court, wherein the