Umpqua Bank v. Circle H CA3

Filed 11/26/13 Umpqua Bank v. Circle H CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sutter) ----

UMPQUA BANK,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C069830

v. (Super. Ct. No. CVCS102006)

CIRCLE H, LLC, et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

Following a court trial of its action to recover monies due under a commercial loan agreement and written guaranties, plaintiff Umpqua Bank (the Bank) obtained judgment against the three guarantors of Circle H, LLC’s loan obligation to the Bank: Brian C. Hamman, Kory H. Hamman, and Howard B. Hamman (the Hammans). The Hammans contend the trial court erred in failing to “apply the sham guaranty defense” and erred in excluding the testimony of one witness as to the value of the collateral. But they have elected to proceed on a clerk’s transcript (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.121), and the appellate record does not include a reporter’s transcript of the trial.

1

(Allen v. Toten (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 1079, 1082-1083; Krueger v. Bank of America (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 204, 207.) On the face of the limited record, the Hammans have failed to establish trial court error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND This is an appeal on the judgment roll because the Hammans did not provide a reporter’s transcript of the court trial. “In a judgment roll appeal based on a clerk’s transcript, every presumption is in favor of the validity of the judgment and all facts consistent with its validity will be presumed to have existed. The sufficiency of the evidence is not open to review. The trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are presumed to be supported by substantial evidence and are binding on the appellate court, unless reversible error appears on the record.” (Bond v. Pulsar Video Productions (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 918, 924.) In light of this standard of review, we take our factual summary chiefly from the exhibits introduced at trial. (See ibid.) In July 2004, Circle H, a limited liability company, entered into an agreement with Feather River State Bank1 to borrow $1.67 million (the 2004 loan).2 The purpose of the loan was to purchase an apartment building in Yuba City. On behalf of Circle H, each of the Hammans signed the 2004 loan agreement, promissory note, and deed of trust in favor of the Bank. The Hammans each also executed a “Commercial Guaranty” in favor of the Bank, in which each individually promised unconditionally to satisfy Circle H’s indebtedness to the Bank, which indebtedness was defined as the amount of the note, all