Shneyder v. Sokolovsky CA2/2

Filed 10/21/13 Shneyder v. Sokolovsky CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

VALERY SHNEYDER, B239085

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LC088327) v.

POLINA SOKOLOVSKY et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Frank J. Johnson, Judge. Affirmed.

Lavely & Singer Professional Corporation, Paul N. Sorrell for Plaintiff and Appellant.

No appearance for Defendants and Respondents.

___________________________________________________

In settlement of a prior lawsuit, respondents agreed to make three separate payments to appellant. Appellant never received the third payment and sued for breach of contract. The trial court below found that the statute of limitations expired before appellant brought this action and entered judgment in favor of respondents. We affirm. BACKGROUND In July 2004, appellant, Valery Shneyder, and other plaintiffs brought suit against respondents, Polina and Gene Sokolovsky, and other defendants after disputes arose relating to the parties‟ acquisition of multiple parcels of real property (the prior action). The parties eventually entered into settlement negotiations and various drafts of a written settlement agreement were created. A notice of settlement was filed and the case was dismissed. The terms of the settlement agreement discussed among the parties called for the conveyance of Shneyder‟s interest in various properties to appellants, and respondents‟ payment to Shnedyer of $579,800 in three separate principal payments, in the amounts of $383,500, $135,000, and $61,300. Respondents paid the first amount of $383,500, plus interest. They also paid the second amount of $135,000, again with interest. According to Shneyder‟s trial testimony in the instant action, in 2009 respondents paid a total of $11,000 toward the remaining $61,300 obligation. Shneyder initiated this action on January 25, 2010, after respondents failed to make any further payments. His complaint alleged, inter alia, that the parties entered into a written settlement agreement to resolve the prior action and that defendants breached the agreement by failing to make all required payments. Trial to the court began on September 19, 2011. At trial, it emerged that no complete, finalized version of a settlement agreement resolving the prior action could be found. Instead, at least two different versions of a settlement agreement were introduced. One of the proffered versions allowed for a deficiency judgment in the event of foreclosure upon notes and deeds of trust securing the payment obligations. The other version did not. Furthermore, one version had signatures of some parties; the other