Shih v. Lin CA4/3

Filed 4/28/14 Shih v. Lin 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

TERESA S. SHIH,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G048378

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2011-00513664)

LI HWAN LIN et al., OPINION

Defendants and Appellants.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Francisco F. Firmat, Judge. Affirmed. Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck, Vincent S. Green, Joel T. Shackelford and Ki’Jhana R. Friday for Defendants and Appellants. Law Offices of David Baxter Norris and David B. Norris for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

Plaintiff and respondent Teresa S. Shih obtained a $2.4 million summary judgment against defendants and appellants Li Hwan “Bernice” Lin and SBL Professional Realty, Inc. The judgment results from a short-term loan plaintiff made to defendants in connection with a real estate development project undertaken by defendants. Defendants contend the trial court incorrectly interpreted the contract that is the basis for the judgment and denied their motion for judgment on the pleadings. Finding no error we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In October 2009 defendants entered into a “Collaboration Agreement” (Agreement) with plaintiff and her husband, Comet K. Shih, who is now deceased. The Agreement recited defendants were obtaining a $10 million loan (Loan) to develop a real estate project (Project) in Vietnam. Defendants needed a deposit to secure the Loan, and plaintiff and her husband agreed to provide $1 million to defendants to be used as a “Cash Deposit” for a “security instrument” for the Loan. Plaintiff and her husband borrowed $985,000 and provided $15,000 of their own funds to pay $1 million to defendants pursuant to the Agreement. The Agreement provided defendants would pay plaintiff 4 percent per annum on the $15,000 contribution until the $1 million was repaid. Defendants agreed to “return” $1 million to plaintiff “upon funding of the” Loan, or, “[i]f the funding of the . . . Loan is not approved by the lender for any reason,” defendants agreed to “return” $1 million to plaintiff “and all obligation[s] of this Agreement [were to] become null and void.” The Agreement stated, “The estimated time for Payback [sic] shall not exceed 90 days from execution of this Agreement.” When the Loan was funded, defendants were to give plaintiff a 3 percent ownership in the project. Defendants were to obtain the loan from Sterling Mortgage Group and its related entity, International Trust and Finance Company, and defendants sent half of