Jancso v. Vinod CA5

Filed 4/9/15 Jancso v. Vinod CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

JULIUS JANCSO et al., F068852 Cross-complainants and Appellants, (Super. Ct. No. S-1500-CV-255598) v.

SAHNI VINOD et al., OPINION Cross-defendants;

KENNETH M. BYRUM,

Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Eric J. Bradshaw, Judge. Law Offices of Gabor Szabo, Gabor Szabo for Cross-complainants and Appellants. No appearance for Cross-defendants. Dowling Aaron Incorporated, Stephanie Hamilton Borchers for Respondent. -ooOoo- New Era Construction, a corporation, obtained title to a parcel of real property in Bakersfield. A dispute developed between the two shareholders of the corporation, Vinod Sahni and Julius Jancso, over whether the property truly belonged to the

corporation or instead to Julius Jancso.1 In the ensuing lawsuit, the trial court appointed Kenneth M. Byrum, the respondent in this appeal, as a provisional director of the corporation; the parties were ordered to pay Byrum’s fees. Subsequently, the lawsuit was settled. Jancso never paid his share of Byrum’s fees. Byrum sought and obtained a judgment from the trial court against Jancso and his wife, Susan Jancso, for the unpaid fees. The Jancsos appeal from that judgment. Byrum concedes that he is not a party to the lawsuit and that the court lacked jurisdiction to enter a judgment in his favor, so the judgment should be vacated. We will order the trial court to vacate the judgment. The Jancsos suggest that we also should find error in the underlying orders appointing and requiring payment to Byrum or should declare that the settlement agreement relieved them of any obligation to pay those fees. The Jancsos invite us, however, to disregard these additional issues if we order the judgment vacated, and we accept the invitation. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff and cross-defendant Sahni filed the original complaint on June 1, 2005. Ultimately, there were eight parties, including plaintiffs, defendants, cross-complainants, and cross-defendants (counting individuals named in different capacities only once and not including Byrum). Appellants Julius and Susan Jancso were defendants and cross- complainants. No version of the complaint is included in the appellate record, so we cannot describe the causes of action, which, in any event, are not germane to the issues on appeal. The trial was bifurcated and the trial court, without a jury, heard specified issues on November 29 to December 3 and December 6 to December 7, 2010. On