Azar v. Azar CA1/3

Filed 2/25/21 Azar v. Azar CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

INDRAWOUS AZAR, et al.

Plaintiffs and Respondents, A159261

v. (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. 18CIV01833) SHIBLI AZAR, et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

This case concerns an interfamilial dispute over the ownership of real property. Indrawous (“Andy”) and his brother Simon Azar, along with Andy’s wife Nadia Azar, are the plaintiffs in this case; we refer to Andy and Simon collectively as “plaintiff brothers.”1 A third brother, Shibli Azar, and his wife Naifeh Azar are the defendants. Following a bench trial, the court found plaintiff brothers to be the real (beneficial) owners of the property, and imposed a resulting trust in their favor; it found defendants held legal title as trustees with no ownership interest. In the judgment under review, the court further found that Simon had waived any beneficial interest in the property,

1 In order to avoid confusion as the parties share the same last name, we shall hereinafter refer to them by their first names as used in the trial court. We mean no disrespect by doing so.

1

and legal title of the property was quieted and confirmed to beneficial owner Andy and his wife Nadia. While the notice of appeal was filed on behalf of both defendants, no appellate brief has been filed on behalf of Shibli. Accordingly, we dismiss his appeal as abandoned. (See Newman v. Wells Fargo Bank (1996) 14 Cal.4th 126, 131, fn. 5 [appellant who filed notice of appeal abandoned appeal when brief was not filed].) As to Naifeh’s appeal, we conclude the judgment must be reversed as the court’s statement of decision includes impermissible and/or irreconcilable findings concerning the resolution of two material issues: (1) Shibli’s apparent authority to act for Naifeh and (2) Naifeh’s intent to purchase the property in trust for Andy and Simon. Because the court’s decision on these two key issues cannot be separated from its rulings on the timeliness and merits of the resulting trust cause of action, we do not address Naifeh’s challenges to those rulings. On remand, the trial court shall issue a new statement of decision and enter judgment accordingly. BACKGROUND This action was commenced in 2018 to resolve a dispute over the ownership of a two-story residence (hereinafter “the property”) purchased in November 1976. Defendants never took possession of the property or lived in the house. Instead, plaintiff brothers moved into the house along with other family members and used it as their home for the next forty plus years. At the time the lawsuit was filed, plaintiffs Andy and his wife Nadia were still living in the home. Following a bench trial, the court granted relief to plaintiffs on their causes of action for a resulting trust and to quiet title in the property, and found in pertinent part that the resulting trust cause of action was not barred by the statute of limitations.