Taxe v. Fernandez CA2/2

Filed 8/31/16 Taxe v. Fernandez CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

RONALD TAXE, No. B262519

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. BC546743) v.

RALPH FERNANDEZ,

Defendant;

CAROLYN A. DYE, as Trustee in Bankruptcy,

Intervener and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Michael P. Linfield, Judge. Affirmed.

Ronald Taxe, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Dumas & Kim, James A. Dumas and Bryan G. Tyson for Intervener and Respondent.

Ronald Taxe (appellant) appeals from an order imposing $25,000 in sanctions upon him and his attorney, jointly and severally. The trial court granted the motion for sanctions, filed by intervener Carolyn A. Dye (Dye), Chapter 7 trustee for the bankruptcy estate of Kathleen Kellogg-Taxe, at the same time as it granted Dye’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that appellant’s complaint was barred by the statute of limitations, res judicata and/or collateral estoppel. Appellant does not appeal the order granting judgment on the pleadings, nor does he address the merits of the sanctions order. We affirm the order. BACKGROUND The complaint On May 27, 2014, appellant, his wife Nadina Taxe, and Kellspin, Inc., a Nevada corporation, filed this action against Ralph Fernandez (Fernandez). The complaint was captioned “Complaint for Cancellation of Void Judgment” The judgment which appellant sought to avoid through this action is a quiet title judgment entered on May 5, 1994, in favor of Fernandez. Fernandez had initiated the quiet title action on January 2, 1992, after obtaining title to property located on Rochester Street, Los Angeles, California following an execution sale. The Rochester property had been owned by David Taxe and Rose Taxe, appellant’s parents. The 1994 judgment specifically found that various liens the Taxes or their entities claimed against the property were fraudulent. The fraudulent liens were extinguished and expunged from the record. Among the liens extinguished was a judgment lien that had been issued in 1984 (the Omni Group lien) which attached to the Rochester property and all of David and Rose Taxe’s property in Los Angeles, including a second property located on Vestone Way. The 1994 judgment was affirmed on appeal, and the fraudulent nature of the encumbrances was specifically addressed and confirmed. Although the 1994 judgment extinguished the Omni Group lien, an assignment of the lien from the Omni Group to appellant and his wife was executed shortly after the trial in the 1994 matter. Appellant and his wife later purported to assign the Omni Group