Shiheiber v. JPMorgan Chase Bank CA1/2

Filed 7/27/22 Shiheiber v. JPMorgan Chase Bank CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

HANAN SHIHEIBER, Cross-complainant and Appellant, A159313

v. (San Mateo County JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Super. Ct. No. CIV493254 ) Cross-defendant and Respondent.

Appellant Hanan Shiheiber appeals from a November 5, 2019 judgment entered after trial, rejecting all her claims against lender JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Chase) arising from Chase’s allegedly wrongful foreclosure upon an apartment building she owned at 789 El Camino Real in Burlingame (the El Camino property).1 On appeal, Shiheiber raises numerous contentions, none of which we find persuasive. We therefore affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND The background and details of this dispute are summarized in our prior opinion, in which we reversed a judgment entered in Chase’s favor after the

Shiheiber contended that as a result of Chase’s wrongful conduct, her 1

finances and credit were impaired to such a degree that it caused her to lose two other properties to foreclosure as well: her home in San Mateo and a duplex property on Willow Avenue in Burlingame.

1

trial court erroneously granted Chase a nonsuit at trial based on the statute of frauds doctrine. (See Shiheiber v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Aug. 28, 2018, A147310 [nonpub. opn.].) That ruling, and those issues, are not pertinent here. On remand, the case proceeded to a re-trial which took place over the course of about 10 days. At least eight witnesses testified, and the reporter’s transcript is more than 2,200 pages. Shiheiber has not summarized any of the trial evidence. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(2)(C) [appellant’s brief must “[p]rovide a summary of the significant facts limited to matters in the record”].) Four of her causes of action were tried to a jury (breach of the implied covenant and fair dealing; fraud; negligent misrepresentation; and money had and received) and one was tried concurrently to the court (unfair business practices under Business and Professions Code section 17200). All were rejected, judgment was again entered in Chase’s favor and this timely appeal followed. DISCUSSION Before turning to the issues, we briefly clarify the scope of our review. “ ‘A judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct. All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown. This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’ ” (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) Among other consequences arising from the presumption of correctness as well as related rules that govern appellate briefing, we disregard all factual statements that are not supported by a citation to the appellate record (United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 142, 156); here, Shiheiber’s briefing contains