Yoon v. CAM IX Trust

California Court of Appeal Jan 29, 2021 No. B301191Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendants were entitled to attorney fees under the promissory note and deed of trust because the plaintiff's tort claims were fundamentally an effort to avoid enforcement of those contracts, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding costs of proof for the plaintiff's failure to admit facts later proven at trial.

Issues

Whether a prevailing party is entitled to attorney fees under Civil Code section 1717 when the underlying lawsuit asserts tort claims rather than a breach of contract.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding costs of proof under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420 for the plaintiff's failure to admit facts.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The gravamen of his lawsuit was an effort to avoid the enforcement of the note and deed of trust; his suit arose from defendants’ alleged conduct in the course of enforcing the terms of those documents.”

“At its core, plaintiff’s suit sought to avoid his obligations under the note by making claims defendant acted negligently and fraudulently during the foreclosure process.”

“Under the authorities just cited, we are persuaded defendants are entitled to fees under the note and deed of trust.”

Filed 1/29/21 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

EDWARD YOON, B301191

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YC071021) v.

CAM IX TRUST et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Deirdre Hill, Judge. Affirmed.

Daniel E. Park Law Corporation, Daniel E. Park and Anna- Sophie Tirre for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Wedgewood, Seth P. Cox and Julie A. Choi for Defendants and Respondents.

__________________________

SUMMARY Plaintiff appeals from an award of attorney fees to defendants. Plaintiff contends it was improper for the trial court to award fees under clauses in a promissory note and deed of trust, where plaintiff’s lawsuit did not assert a breach of contract claim. He further contends a second basis for the fee award, arising from his denial of defendants’ requests for admission, was erroneous as well. We find no merit in plaintiff’s contentions and affirm the trial court’s order. FACTS Plaintiff Edward Yoon sued defendants CAM IX Trust and BSI Financial Services, Inc. in connection with a trustee’s sale of plaintiff’s home in Rancho Palos Verdes. CAM IX Trust was the assignee of a deed of trust on the property that secured repayment of a $640,000 promissory note, and BSI was Cam IX Trust’s loan servicer. Plaintiff alleged claims for negligence and fraud, statutory claims, and causes of action to set aside the trustee’s sale and quiet title. By the time the case went to a jury, plaintiff had abandoned or dismissed all claims except those for negligence and fraud. Plaintiff asserted defendants failed to properly review his request for a short sale, and told him the foreclosure sale date had been postponed for several days (although it had not), causing him to miss the deadline for making the loan current or finalizing a short sale. The jury found that neither defendant was negligent and no false representations were made. Defendants sought attorney fees on two bases: under Civil Code section 1717, on the ground the note and deed of trust provided for the recovery of attorney fees, and under Code of Civil

Yoon v. CAM IX Trust

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

EDWARD YOON, B301191

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

STRATTON, J.

WILEY, J.

AI Brief