Colonial Pacific Leasing Corp. v. Kazi CA2/8

Filed 11/5/15 Colonial Pacific Leasing Corp. v. Kazi CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

COLONIAL PACIFIC LEASING B257599 CORPORATION, etc., et al., (Los Angeles County Plaintiffs and Respondents, Super. Ct. No. BC483162) v.

FATIMA KAZI,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. William F. Fahey, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions.

Gareeb Law Group, Alexander S. Gareeb and Fadi K. Rasheed; Richard A. Kraslow and Richard A. Kraslow for Defendant and Appellant.

Reed Smith, Farah Tabibkhoei and Alexander Terras, for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

__________________________

Colonial Pacific Leasing Corporation and GE Capital Commercial, Inc. (collectively, GE) brought the instant fraudulent conveyance action to set aside a transfer from its debtor Khatija Kazi (mother) to the debtor’s daughter Fatima Kazi (daughter). GE was successful at trial and obtained a judgment against daughter setting aside the transfer. While daughter’s appeal was pending, mother satisfied her underlying debt. As the debt has been satisfied, GE is no longer a creditor of mother and the matter is moot. We therefore reverse the judgment and remand with directions that the action be dismissed.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The relevant history is simple and undisputed. In November 2010, GE brought suit against mother, obtaining a judgment against her in the amount of $9.9 million. While that action was pending, mother transferred her mansion to daughter. It was this transfer that GE sought to set aside as fraudulent. The operative complaint asserted a single cause of action, for fraudulent transfer. On June 16, 2014, GE obtained a judgment declaring the transfer of the home from mother to daughter null and void. Daughter filed a timely notice of appeal. While the appeal was pending, mother satisfied the underlying judgment. On April 1, 2015, GE filed an acknowledgement of satisfaction of judgment. As such, GE is no longer a creditor of mother, and has no interest in obtaining the house.1 GE sought to dismiss the appeal as moot. We denied the motion on the basis that a dismissal would leave standing the judgment voiding the transfer from mother to daughter, leaving daughter with no basis to claim title to the property.