Tahir v. Budihalim CA1/5

Filed 11/26/14 Tahir v. Budihalim 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

KARIM H. TAHIR et al.,

Plaintiffs and Appellants, A140231

v. (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. JIMMY BUDIHALIM, CGC10504897)

Defendant and Respondent. _____________________________________/

Appellants Karim H. Tahir and Liana Tahir (collectively, Tahirs) appeal from the trial court’s order approving a receiver’s final accounting. The Tahirs contend the court erred by denying their requests “for equitable relief” when it approved the final accounting. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Tahirs and respondent Jimmy Budihalim jointly owned real property on: (1) 10th Street in San Francisco (10th Street); (2) Milvia Street in Berkeley (Milvia Street); and (3) Blake Street in Berkeley (Blake Street). The Tahirs sued Budihalim, seeking to void his interest in 10th Street, among other things.1 Budihalim cross-claimed for, among

1 The parties’ interest in a fourth property, on 10th Street in Berkeley, is not relevant to this appeal. Tara Tahir, a defendant in the trial court, is not a party on appeal. We recite only those facts relevant to the issues on appeal. 1

other things, a partition of 10th Street, an accounting of the jointly-owned properties, and the appointment of a receiver. In a settlement agreement executed following a mediation: (1) the Tahirs agreed to pay Budihalim $66,500 to purchase his interest in 10th Street; and (2) the parties agreed to list Milvia and Blake Streets for sale. As relevant here, the settlement agreement provided, “[e]ach party shall be entitled to reimbursement of their respective pro-rata share” of the jointly-owned properties. At Budihalim’s request, the court appointed a receiver with authority to sell Milvia and Blake Streets and to distribute the sale proceed residue “among the Parties in proportion to their interests; and in conformity with the . . . Settlement Agreement[.]” When the receiver was appointed, the Tahirs owned 50 percent of Blake Street and 75 percent of Milvia Street. Budihalim owned 50 percent of Blake Street and 25 percent of Milvia Street. After the court appointed the receiver, the parties stipulated the Tahirs would purchase Budihalim’s interest in Milvia Street and Blake Street. The parties also stipulated — pursuant to the settlement agreement — the Tahirs would purchase Budihalim’s remaining interest in 10th Street, with the purchase amount being offset by an agreed amount. The court approved the stipulation. Milvia and Blake Streets sold and both parties submitted claims to the receiver. Among other things, the Tahirs sought $112,720.63 from the sale of Milvia Street, contending Budihalim had transferred his ownership interest in that property to them. The receiver denied this claim, concluding it predated the settlement agreement. The Tahirs also sought $144,500 from the sale of Blake Street, claiming Budihalim was liable for a loan on that property. The receiver denied this claim, concluding it predated the settlement agreement, Budihalim was not a signor on the promissory note, and the Tahirs did not offer “‘satisfactory evidence’ [Budihalim] ‘received funds from’” the loan on the property. The receiver moved for an order: (1) approving and settling the receiver’s final report and accounting; (2) approving the receiver’s final compensation and reimbursement of costs; (3) exonerating all bonds; (4) approving and ratifying the