California Court of Appeal Jul 29, 2014 No. B246203Unpublished
Filed 7/29/14 Cain v. Akano CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE
BOBBIE R. CAIN, B246203
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC464958) v.
GOLDEN AKANO,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
William F. Fahey, Judge. Affirmed.
Law Offices of Wilfred I. Aka and Wilfred I. Aka for Defendant and Appellant.
Law Offices of Judith A. Gordon and Judith A. Gordon for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
_______________________________________
In this case, the trial court found, after a non-jury trial that the plaintiff and
respondent, Bobbie R. Cain, had loaned the defendant and appellant, Golden Akano, the
sum of $113,000 who did not repay it as promised. The court further found that Akano
had no intent to repay this loan at the time he signed the promissory note in Cain’s favor
and received the money and that he had made false and fraudulent representations to her
to induce her to loan the money to him. Judgment was entered in Cain’s favor in the
amount owed plus interest and punitive damages. As there is substantial evidence in the
In September of 2007, Cain was employed as a travel nurse at Los Angeles
County U.S.C. Hospital. In 2008, Cain was transferred to a “psych unit” where Akano
was a supervisor. They spoke often at work about Akano’s various business interests.
Cain told him about the money she had saved to buy a home and he frequently gave her
advice on real estate and money matters. He also, from time to time, made statements
about his business interests in Nigeria and his several income real properties in the
Los Angeles area. She believed and trusted him. In 2009, Akano asked Cain to loan
him $5,000 which he promised to repay. Akano did pay that sum back to her shortly
thereafter, but without interest. The transaction was all oral, there was no written
promissory note involved.
Shortly thereafter, Akano asked Cain for another loan, this time in the sum of
$70,000. Cain agreed to do so and gave that sum to Akano. Again, there was no
promissory note executed. Within a month, Akano repaid the $70,000, but without
2
interest. The record is unclear as to (1) what Akano wanted the money for (there was
vague testimony about certain but unnamed “business interest”) and (2) from what
source he obtained the funds to repay her.
Beginning in December of 2009, Akano induced Cain to loan him several sums
of money which, by June 1, 2010, totaled the sum of $113,000. She gave him that total
sum over a period of several months in amounts of $80,000, $20,000, $5,000 and
$5,000.1 These sums were either in cash or cashier’s check and were evidenced by
separate promissory notes providing due dates that Akano, each in turn, failed to meet,
despite numerous demands by Cain. Finally, these obligations were combined into
a single promissory note for $113,000 dated August 31, 2010 and by which Akano
promised payment by October 1, 2010, together with interest at 10%. This note
reflected that the loan was being made for “business purposes.”
October 1, 2010 came and went and Akano failed to repay the loan or any part of
it. At trial, he did not dispute that the money is owed. On July 7, 2011, Cain filed this
action, pleading causes of action for breach of contract, misrepresentation and fraud.
After a bench trial on November 28, 2112, at which Cain and Akano were the only
witnesses and the only documentary exhibits were the four separate promissory notes
signed by Akano, the trial court issued its ruling:2
1 The record does not reflect how or when the final $3,000 was loaned to Akano. 2 The court orally announced the essence of this judgment immediately upon the conclusion of the evidence and argument of counsel.
3
“THE COURT FINDS THAT: Defendant was engaged in a classic fraud
scheme. He initially borrowed small sums from the trusting Plaintiff who was his
subordinate and he took advantage of that employment relationship and the position of
power and authority. The initial amounts were quickly repaid, and that’s to further
establish a trusting relationship and reliance by the Plaintiff. Then the Defendant
borrowed a much larger amount by giving a false story and relying on his relationship
and position of power with the Plaintiff. [¶] Defendant had no intent to repay. The
Court specifically finds the Defendant was not credible and the Plaintiff was. And,
indeed, rather than repay the amount that he did not intend to pay when borrowing the
money, the Defendant persisted and asked for the names of even more victims and for
even more money from the Plaintiff. [¶] On the first cause of action, the Plaintiff is
entitled to $113,000 which is the amount outstanding. [¶] On the second and third
causes of action, the amount of the award is the same. The court does not find further
evidence of special damages on the second and third causes of action. [¶] THE
COURT FURTHER FINDS: [¶] By clear and convincing evidence that Defendant,
Golden Akano, was engaged in a fraudulent scheme and did make fraudulent
statements. His stories about Nigeria and the adventures were completely unbelievable.
No corroboration. [¶] The Defendant was not credible and could not even keep his
story straight regarding various agents and where the funds went and how documents or
bank accounts had to be shown to some clerk or some other agent in Africa; it’s almost
impossible to follow the story on this, and that’s what happens when you’re inventing
4
stories as you go along. As a result, Plaintiff has asked for and will be awarded punitive
damages.” The trial court set the amount of punitive damages at $50,000.
Following entry of judgment, Akano filed a timely appeal.
APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS
On appeal, Akano attacks only the portion of the judgment with respect to the
second and third causes of action for misrepresentation and fraud. He argues that Cain
did not produce evidence sufficient to establish all of the necessary elements of
a fraudulent misrepresentation claim. Thus, Akano argues the award of punitive
damages should be reversed. This essentially presents a question of substantial
evidence.3 Contrary to Akano’s contention, our review of this very brief record
demonstrates that it does support the specific findings of the trial court. We will
therefore affirm.
DISCUSSION
1. Standard of Review
“When considering a claim of insufficient evidence on appeal, we do not reweigh
the evidence, but rather determine whether, after resolving all conflicts favorably to the
prevailing party, and according the prevailing party the benefit of all reasonable
inferences, there is substantial evidence to support the judgment.” (Scott v. Pacific Gas
& Electric Co. (1995) 11 Cal.4th 454, 465.) In reviewing the evidence on appeal, all
conflicts must be resolved in favor of the judgment, and all legitimate and reasonable
3 Akano makes no other assertion of error below.
5
inferences indulged in to uphold the judgment if possible. When a judgment is attacked
as being unsupported, the power of the appellate court begins and ends with
a determination as to whether there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or
uncontradicted, which will support the judgment. When two or more inferences can be
reasonably deduced from the facts, the reviewing court is without power to substitute its
deductions for those of the trial court. (Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior
2. Akano Has Not Demonstrated Any Error In the Trial Court’s Findings
It is the appellant's burden to affirmatively demonstrate error in the challenged
order, and to demonstrate the error's prejudicial impact on the appellant. (Denham v.
Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) “ ‘The necessary elements of fraud are:
(1) misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure);
(2) knowledge of falsity (scienter); (3) intent to defraud (i.e. to induce reliance);
(4) justifiable reliance; and (5) resulting damage.’ ” (Alliance Mortgage Co. v. Rothwell
(1995) 10 Cal.4th 1226, 1239.)
Reviewing the testimony of Cain and Akano in a light which is most favorable to
the former and including the reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom, we
have no trouble concluding that the judgment is correct. Akano repeatedly represented
to Cain that his investments in Nigeria would make money and that her life savings then
in the bank could be put to better use elsewhere. The court could properly conclude that
Akano’s solicitation and repayment of smaller loans were simply confidence building
6
elements of his fraudulent scheme. Such a conclusion is particularly compelling in light
of the supervisorial relationship Akano had with Cain and the understandable trust she
had in his judgment. Each of the elements Cain’s fraud claim are established by the
evidence presented and the trial court expressly so found in the specific findings quoted
above.
Akano’s arguments to the contrary essentially rely on the proposition that Cain
should have done more to protect herself and her reliance on Akano’s representations
was not justified. The trial court was entitled to conclude otherwise. Akano points to
no evidence or argument that would justify our rejection of the trial court’s fully
supported ruling.
7
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Cain shall recover her costs on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
CROSKEY, J.
WE CONCUR:
KLEIN, P. J.
ALDRICH, J.
8
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that substantial evidence supported the trial court's finding that the defendant engaged in a fraudulent scheme to induce the plaintiff to loan him money, thereby justifying the award of damages and punitive damages.
Issues
Whether there was substantial evidence to support the trial court's findings of fraudulent misrepresentation and fraud.
Whether the trial court's award of punitive damages was supported by the evidence.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“As there is substantial evidence in the record to support the judgment, we will affirm.”
“Each of the elements Cain’s fraud claim are established by the evidence presented and the trial court expressly so found in the specific findings quoted above.”