Sohal v. Crossland CA3

Filed 3/18/15 Sohal v. Crossland CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Tehama) ----

GURDEEP SOHAL et al., C072297

Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Super. Ct. No. 62747)

v.

CHARLES CROSSLAND et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Gurdeep and Jasbir Sohal purchased real property and a business from Charles and Patricia Crossland. Later, the Sohals stopped paying on the loan provided by the Crosslands and sued the Crosslands. The Crosslands cross-complained and prevailed at trial on both the Sohals’ complaint and their own cross-complaint. Before the trial court could enter judgment, however, the Sohals filed a bankruptcy petition. Despite the automatic bankruptcy stay, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the Crosslands. The Crosslands obtained relief from the stay in the bankruptcy court, but, instead of

1

obtaining a new judgment, they proceeded to a judicial foreclosure on the property. After the Crosslands repurchased the property in the judicial foreclosure sale, the Sohals moved to set aside the judgment, arguing that, since the judgment was entered while the bankruptcy stay was in effect, it was void. The trial court denied the motion, and the Sohals appeal. We conclude that the Sohals have no standing to move to set aside the judgment or to appeal the trial court’s denial of the motion because the property and related litigation became part of the bankruptcy estate. Ownership over this litigation was never abandoned by the bankruptcy trustee. We also conclude that the Sohals’ appeal from the trial court’s later order of costs, including attorney fees, is without merit because the Sohals make no argument in their briefing challenging the order of costs. We therefore dismiss the appeal from the order denying the motion to set aside the judgment and affirm the order of costs. BACKGROUND Before we recount the background, we must comment on the Sohals’ briefing. Much of their opening brief contains statements of fact or procedure without a reference to the record on appeal. Because of this, the Sohals’ briefing is “in dramatic noncompliance with appellate procedures.” (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246.) We will not consider any statement of fact or procedure not supported by a reference to the record on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(2)(C); Schmidlin v. City of Palo Alto (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 728, 738.) We therefore disregard those statements in the Sohals’ briefing not properly supported and consider only statements that have an accompanying citation to the record on appeal.