Phan v. Nguyen CA4/3

Filed 12/12/13 Phan v. Nguyen CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

PHIEU PHAN et al.,

Cross-complainants and Appellants, G047776

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2011-00451173)

CHINH NGUYEN, OPINION

Cross-defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Franz E. Miller, Judge. Affirmed. Charles H. Manh and Charles H. Manh, Van N. Dao and William Welden for Cross-complainants and Appellants. Sicat Law and Jocelyn H. Sicat for Cross-defendant and Respondent.

* * *

The signatures of cross-complainants and appellants Phieu Phan and Yen Le were forged on certain documents and notarized using the notary seal of cross- defendant and respondent Chinh Nguyen. Appellants sued respondent for negligence, alleging he did not properly protect his notary seal. After a bench trial the court found respondent was not negligent in securing his notary stamp. Appellants claim the evidence shows to the contrary and the judgment should be reversed. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Appellants provided an abbreviated record. Although the trial testimony is before us, by design appellants did not include “extensive underlying pleadings or any trial exhibits”1 because “the accuracy and correctness of the [t]rial [c]ourt’s findings” are not challenged, only “the misapplication of the law to the found facts.” Appellants recite the facts almost exclusively from the findings the trial court made in rendering its decision rather than actual trial testimony. The slim record contains little or no information about the underlying complaint leading up to this cross-action. However, both parties in some fashion or another state the case’s background. Chau Luong filed a breach of contract action against appellants. According to the complaint appellants executed a promissory note for $150,000 in connection with an alleged partnership and grant deed. The deed and partnership agreement were allegedly notarized by respondent. The partnership agreement showed appellants had transferred land to three parties who allowed appellants to use a portion of that property to secure the promissory note. Appellants filed a cross-complaint against the original