Moles v. Pyle CA5

Filed 8/26/14 Moles v. Pyle CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

ERMEL R. MOLES et al., F067378 Plaintiffs and Respondents, (Super. Ct. No. 12CECG02741) v.

EDWIN L. PYLE, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Kristi Culver Kapetan, Judge. Edwin L. Pyle, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. Campagne, Campagne & Lerner, Thomas E. Campagne and Wiley R. Driskill for Plaintiffs and Respondents. -ooOoo-

PROCEDURAL HISTORY In an earlier action between appellant Edwin L. Pyle and respondents Ermel R. Moles and Ben Rastegar, the superior court rendered a July 15, 2010, judgment in favor of Moles and Rastegar and awarded damages, costs, and attorney’s fees. The original abstract of judgment was recorded on July 20, 2010,1 and a notice of judgment lien was filed on July 29, 2010. Pyle appealed to this court. We affirmed the judgment and awarded Moles and Rastegar costs and attorney’s fees. As of March 5, 2013, the outstanding balance, including accrued interest, totaled $224,051.76. On August 30, 2012, Moles and Rastegar filed a complaint for judicial foreclosure of the judgment lien. Simon and Simarjot Sihota, who had purchased a 40-acre parcel from Pyle on August 4, 2010, and owed him $247,000, filed a cross-complaint for interpleader. On February 19, 2013, Pyle, Moles, Rastegar, and the Sihotas stipulated to the following terms: (1) Pyle would remove the deed of trust on the parcel; (2) Moles and Rastegar would release the judgment lien on the parcel; (3) the Sihotas’ $247,000 debt would be interpled; (4) entitlement to the debt would be determined at a March 5, 2013, hearing; and (5) prior to the hearing, Pyle as well as Rastegar and Moles would submit written argument in support of their respective claims. The signed stipulation was entered as a court order. On February 26, 2013, Rastegar and Moles filed a motion for release of the interpled funds and a memorandum of points and authorities. They contended, inter alia, that they were entitled to the funds because the judgment lien attached to the parcel on July 20, 2010, before Pyle sold it to the Sihotas.2 On February 28, 2013, Pyle filed an answer to the Sihotas’ cross-complaint for interpleader, in which he challenged the prior July 15, 2010, judgment. 1 An amended abstract of judgment was recorded on November 1, 2010. 2 In support of their argument, Moles and Rastegar cited Lezine v. Security Pacific Fin. Services, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 56, 64-65, and Code of Civil Procedure sections 697.310 and 697.340.