Shin v. Chung CA2/4

Filed 11/18/20 Shin v. Chung CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

DAVID DONG SHIN, B301055

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC671510) v.

CHRISTINE H. CHUNG, et al,,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, William F. Fahey, Judge. Affirmed. Daniel E. Park Law Corporation and Daniel E. Park for Defendants and Appellants. David S. Kim & Associates, David S. Kim and Todd A. Fuson for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION Respondent David Dong Shin sued appellants Christine H. Chung, aka Hyun Im Kim (Christine) and her adult daughter, Michele Y. Chung aka Yon Son Chung (Michele), for violations of the former Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), former Civil Code, section 3439, et seq.1 Shin alleged that Christine fraudulently transferred title of a real property to Michele to avoid collection on a judgment against Christine. Following a bench trial, the court found in favor of Shin and voided the grant deed and corresponding note. The Chungs have not challenged that finding on appeal. Shin then moved for an award of attorney fees under a remedies provision in the UFTA, Civil Code section 3439.07, subdivision (a)(3)(C), which allows a creditor to obtain any type of “relief the circumstances may require,” “[s]ubject to applicable principles of equity and in accordance with applicable rules of civil procedure.” The Chungs opposed the motion, but only on the basis that Shin’s fee request was inadequately supported by evidence. The court granted the motion and awarded Shin attorney fees of $103,950.00. The Chungs assert two contentions on appeal. First, they argue that Civil Code section 3439.07, subdivision (a)(3)(C) does not provide a legal basis for an award of attorney fees. The Chungs forfeited this contention by failing to raise it below, and therefore we do not address it. Second, the Chungs contend that