Manookian v. Union Bank, N.A. CA2/1
Filed 10/27/15 Manookian v. Union Bank, N.A. CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE
SERJIK MANOOKIAN, B257753
Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. EC059574) v.
UNION BANK, N.A., et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
APPEAL from judgments of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Laura A. Matz, Judge. Affirmed. Mazur & Mazur, Janice R. Mazur, William E. Mazur, Jr.; Aroustamian & Associates and Ara Aroustamian for Plaintiff and Appellant. Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, Richard Sontag and Frank Coughlin for Defendant and Respondent Union Bank, N.A. Stone|Dean, Kristi W. Dean and Leslie A. Blozan for Defendant and Respondent American Modern Home Insurance Company. ——————————
Serjik Manookian (Manookian) filed this lawsuit seeking compensation for repairs that he purchased for his house. Manookian alleges that the lender who provided his home loan, Union Bank, N.A., and its insurance company, American Modern Home Insurance Company (AMHI), are liable for his repair costs. Based on judicial estoppel, the trial court sustained Union Bank’s demurrer, granted AMHI’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, and denied Manookian leave to amend his second amended complaint. We affirm. During a prior bankruptcy proceeding, Manookian intentionally did not disclose his claims against Union Bank and AMHI for $130,000 yet benefited by being relieved of $644,578 of his debt; therefore, he is judicially estopped from pursuing those claims in this lawsuit. BACKGROUND I. Facts of the case In October 2002, Manookian obtained a $165,000 loan from Union Bank and, to secure the loan, executed a deed of trust encumbering the house. The deed of trust required that Manookian maintain homeowner’s insurance and, if he failed to do so, allowed Union Bank to obtain insurance and charge Manookian for the insurance premiums. In early 2011, Manookian allowed the insurance to lapse. On February 9, 2011, Union Bank then obtained a forced-placed commercial insurance policy for the house and charged Manookian for the monthly premiums. On February 18, the house suffered damage when a car hit a hydrant in front of the house. Manookian alleges having spent $130,000 in repairs to the house but has not disclosed when he paid that amount. Only a month later, on March 16, Manookian filed for bankruptcy. In his bankruptcy filings, he never disclosed his claim that Union Bank and AMHI owed him $130,000. He denied the existence of any liquidated (certain) and unliquidated or contingent (uncertain) claims owed to him. He denied any casualty loss (such as to his house) in the last year. He denied the existence of any pending contracts (such as for
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)