Charles v. U.S. Bank, N.A. CA3

Filed 9/27/21 Charles v. U.S. Bank, N.A. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Nevada) ----

STANLEY PETER CHARLES III, C089024

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. TCU12-5038)

v.

U.S. BANK, N.A.,

Defendant;

TORY M. PANKOPF,

Third Party Claimant and Respondent.

Appellant, Stanley Peter Charles III, appeals the trial court’s order transferring the registry funds held with the court to Charles’s former attorney’s client trust account. He complains: (1) the trial court exceeded its subject matter jurisdiction in granting relief to nonparty former attorney Tory M. Pankopf; (2) Pankopf does not have a valid attorney fee lien; (3) Pankopf is not a third party beneficiary to the settlement agreement; and (4) Pankopf cannot demonstrate estoppel entitlement to the funds held in trust by the court.

1

We conclude Charles has failed to demonstrate the trial court was without subject matter jurisdiction to grant Pankopf’s application to transfer the funds pursuant to language in Charles’s settlement agreement, and any argument that the court acted in excess of its jurisdiction has been waived by Charles’s failure to object below. Because the trial court expressly did not decide the ongoing dispute between Charles and Pankopf concerning those funds, we will not address defendant’s remaining claims concerning an award that never occurred. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND As recounted in this court’s earlier unpublished decision, Charles filed suit “for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith, failure to comply with mortgage statutes, promissory estoppel, and declaratory and injunctive relief.” (Charles v. U.S. Bank, N.A. (Oct. 26, 2018, C082489) [nonpub. opn.].) The parties settled the vast majority of Charles’s claims related to various banking entities in an agreement dated September 26, 2014 (the settlement agreement).1 We recognized the binding nature of the settlement agreement in our previous opinion, which upheld the trial court’s grant of summary judgment and dismissal of Charles’s claims against the respondent banking entities. On December 24, 2018, Charles’s attorney Pankopf filed a document in the trial court entitled “AMENDED APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO RELEASE FUNDS DEPOSITED WITH COURT.” This application stated that Pankopf, “attorney for Plaintiff STANLEY PETER CHARLES, III (‘Plaintiff’ or ‘Charles’), applies for an order to release the funds deposited with the court by Plaintiff to the Law Offices of Tory M. Pankopf (‘Application’) pursuant to the settlement agreement . . . .” The application argued that the settlement agreement provided that the funds previously deposited with