Cen v. Fu CA1/5

Filed 3/26/14 Cen v. Fu CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

LI CEN, Defendant and Appellant, A137565 v. GUANGPING FU, (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. MSC1100579) Plaintiff and Respondent.

Li Cen appeals from a judgment quieting title to real property in favor of Gaungping Fu and awarding him damages for fraud. Fu, a Chinese national, sent Cen money she used to purchase real property on his behalf in El Cerrito, California. After acquiring the property, Cen rented it out but misrepresented the amount of rent she was collecting. Instead of sending Fu the full amount of the rent, Cen kept a significant portion for herself. In addition, Cen, who knew Fu could not read English, persuaded him to sign a grant deed transferring the property to her by misrepresenting the nature of the document. When Fu realized he had been deceived, he sued Cen to quiet title and seeking damages on grounds of fraud and other causes of action. He prevailed in the trial court, and Cen now appeals from the judgment. The gist of her claims is that the trial court’s findings are unsupported by substantial evidence. Her arguments lack merit, and we therefore affirm.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 Fu is a Chinese citizen who cannot speak, read, or write English.2 Fu knew Cen through Cen’s former husband, who had been Fu’s college classmate. In 2009, Cen, who holds an MBA, contacted Fu in China about investing in real property in the United States. After Cen assisted Fu in obtaining a visa, Fu flew from China to San Francisco to meet with her. The two looked at properties in the Bay Area, and after Fu returned to China, Cen located what she thought was a suitable property in El Cerrito. Cen told Fu she could negotiate a purchase price of $700,000, and the property could be rented for $5,000 per month. After speaking with Fu by phone, Cen made an offer to purchase the property in her own name. On Cen’s instructions, on July 28, 2009, Fu wired Cen $695,747 for the purchase of the property. The seller deeded the property to Cen, and then on August 12, 2009, Cen transferred the property to Fu. Using her own name, Cen signed a lease with tenant E&W Business, Inc., for $7,000 per month, but she did not send Fu a copy of the lease. Instead, Cen sent Fu copies of two lease agreements, the first of which stated the monthly rent for the property was $4,000, while the second put the rent at $7,000. Cen told Fu the first version of the lease would be shown to the government for tax purposes. Although Fu signed both agreements, he did not fax them back to Cen. He thought the lease reflecting the $7,000 rent was essentially a fraudulent agreement, and while he agreed to the rent in the other