Nuvision Fed. Credit Union v. Beliciu CA2/1

California Court of Appeal Jul 24, 2014 No. B243887Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment voiding a vehicle lien sale and determining that the purchaser was not a bona fide purchaser, as the trial court's findings were supported by substantial evidence.

Issues

Whether the trial court's determination that the purchaser was not a bona fide purchaser was supported by substantial evidence.
Whether the trial court erred in finding that the vehicle repairs were not authorized by the owner.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The court finds that the lien sale was a sham – it was a procedure adopted by Peytchev and Beliciu to permit Beliciu to acquire from Peytchev a vehicle abandoned by Theus at Peytchev’s Automotive.”

“We are bound by the trial court’s credibility determinations and neither reweigh the evidence nor reassess credibility determinations”

Filed 7/24/14 Nuvision Fed. Credit Union v. Beliciu CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

NUVISION FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, B243887

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NC055681) v.

GIORGIAN BELICIU et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles, Patrick T. Madden, Judge. Affirmed. Kostadin Peytchev, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. Giorgian Beliciu, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. Anaya Law Group, Alana B. Anaya and Jonathan A. Malek for Plaintiff and Respondent. _____________________

SUMMARY Defendants and Appellants Kostadin Peytchev1 and Giorgian Beliciu, in pro. per., appeal from a judgment of the superior court after a bench trial in favor of plaintiff and respondent Nuvision Federal Credit Union. We affirm.

BACKGROUND2 In 2008, defendant Cynthia Theus3 obtained a vehicle loan from plaintiff and respondent Nuvision Federal Credit Union to finance her purchase of a used Mercedes car. Nuvision had a security agreement with Theus that gave Nuvision the right to repossess the car in the event of a default on the loan. On May 17, 2010, Theus had her car towed to appellant Peytchev’s Mercedes repair shop. Peytchev gave Theus a written estimate of $756 to make the car operable4 and asked for a $50 deposit.5 Theus did not pay the deposit and asked Peytchev for more time. When Theus came to the repair shop a second time, she again did not pay the deposit and asked for more time. Peytchev claimed he believed Theus would pay and ordered the necessary parts to make the repair. Peytchev contacted Theus on May 28, 2010, to pay for the car repairs but Theus said she needed more time. After the end of May, Theus’s phone number was disconnected and Peytchev stated he was unable to

Nuvision Fed. Credit Union v. Beliciu CA2/1

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

NUVISION FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, B243887

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

CHANEY, J.

ROTHSCHILD, P. J.

AI Brief