Deaver v. NCB Capital Impact CA3

Filed 1/4/16 Deaver v. NCB Capital Impact CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Amador) ----

KEN H. DEAVER et al., C075988

Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Super. Ct. No. 12CV7760)

v.

NCB CAPITAL IMPACT,

Defendant and Respondent.

Plaintiffs Ken H. Deaver and Gerry Ninnis (Landlords) appeal from a judgment in favor of Defendant NCB, FSB (Bank) after a court trial on the Landlords’ complaint for trespass. The Landlords contend that: (1) the trial court erred by not applying California law permitting a cause of action for trespass by chattel, and (2) a claim for trespass by chattel was established at trial. We are unable to meaningfully review these assertions because the Landlords have not provided an adequate record on appeal and they have failed to provide adequate citations to the incomplete record that was provided. For these reasons we affirm.

1

I. BACKGROUND A. Trial Court Proceedings Beginning in 1999, the Landlords rented a hardware store to Plymouth Hardware and Feed Supply. In a separate action filed in 2011, the Bank obtained an order for a writ of possession regarding the inventory and equipment at Plymouth Hardware and Feed Supply based on an unpaid promissory note and a security agreement between the Bank and Plymouth Hardware and Feed Supply. Shortly thereafter, the tenants ended their occupancy of the store, but left some inventory behind that became the impetus for this lawsuit. The Landlords’ complaint alleges causes of action for trespass and conversion against the Bank. The trial court dismissed the conversion cause of action on a motion for judgment on the pleadings. In support of their trespass claim, the Landlords allege that the Bank assumed ownership of the store’s inventory and entered the store without the Landlords’ consent. The trespass claim proceeded to a bench trial, at the close of which the trial court indicated it would issue a decision finding that the Bank had trespassed by causing the sheriff to enter the Landlords’ property. The trial court also suggested it would find that the Bank had forfeited its security interest and right to take possession of the inventory, but intentionally failed to inform the Landlords “in an effort to extort something out of it.” The court stated it was still considering the issue of damages. After the court issued its statement of decision, the Bank filed objections. At the hearing on the Bank’s objections, the trial court withdrew its intended decision. Ultimately, the trial court entered judgment in the Bank’s favor. B. The Appeal On appeal, the Landlords’ opening brief states that they “raise only one issue on appeal and that is, did the court abuse its discretion in finding that plaintiffs should take nothing despite the evidence and law presented at trial.” Later, however, under the heading “Standard of Review,” the Landlords assert that “[t]he trial court prejudicially