Vega v. Goradia CA2/5

Filed 2/26/15 Vega v. Goradia CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

LIRIO A. VEGA, B254585

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YC067224) v.

YOGESH N. GORADIA et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Ramona G. See, Judge. Reversed. Albert Passaretti for Plaintiff and Appellant. Stanley D. Bowman for Defendants and Respondents.

******

Plaintiff Lirio Vega sued defendants Yogesh and Ranjan Goradia for wrongful foreclosure and related causes of action in connection with a sheriff’s sale of real property (the Property) conducted pursuant to a judgment of foreclosure. Judgment was entered in favor of defendants. In a separate opinion filed this date, we affirm the judgment and orders of the trial court in that lawsuit. Subsequent to entry of judgment, defendants moved for an award of attorney’s fees. The court granted the motion and ordered plaintiff to pay defendants $63,120 in attorney’s fees. Plaintiff appeals the post-judgment order. We conclude that, contrary to defendants’ contention, plaintiff’s claims were not based on the note or deed of trust executed by plaintiff in connection with her purchase of the Property. Because no other basis for the fee award is proffered, we reverse the order.

PROCEDURAL SUMMARY The factual background of this case is set forth in our opinion, filed concurrently herewith (Vega v. Goradia (B253579)), affirming the trial court’s entry of judgment in favor of defendants in plaintiff’s lawsuit for wrongful foreclosure, abuse of process, fraud, and quiet title. This appeal is limited to the trial court’s ruling that defendants, as prevailing parties, were entitled to recover the attorney’s fees they incurred in defending the wrongful foreclosure lawsuit based on the attorney’s fees provisions of the note and deed of trust executed by plaintiff in connection with her purchase of the Property. In their attorney’s fees motion, defendants relied on Civil Code2 1717 and Code of Civil Procedure sections 730, 1032, 1033 and 1033.5, together with the provisions of the written contracts between the parties, to argue that they were entitled to recover their attorney’s fees as prevailing parties in this action. Their brief on appeal states their legal position as follows: “Where a new action is filed to challenge a previous judgment that was based upon a contract, the prevailing party is entitled to an award of attorney[’s]