Li v. Chiu CA1/3

Filed 8/1/22 Li v. Chiu 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

CHARLES LI, Plaintiff and Respondent, A163866 v. THAI MING CHIU et al., (San Francisco City & County Super. Ct. No. CGC-14-537574) Defendants and Appellants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 In this appeal — their latest effort in a years-long scheme to avoid paying a judgment they owe plaintiff Charles Li — defendants and judgment debtors Thai Ming Chiu and Tina Yan (collectively, defendants) challenge trial court orders directing the sale of their respective dwellings to satisfy the

We resolve this case by memorandum opinion pursuant to California 1

Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1. This is defendants’ fifth appeal in this case. We incorporate by reference our opinions in two prior appeals — Li v. Chiu (May 31, 2018, A149849) [nonpub. opn.] (Li I), and Li v. Chiu (Dec. 22, 2020, A156760) [nonpub. opn.] (Li II) — and recite only those facts necessary to decide this appeal. For convenience, we refer to family members sharing a surname by their first names. We deny defendants’ request for judicial notice of an unpublished appellate court decision. (Airline Pilots Assn. Internat. v. United Airlines, Inc. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 706, 724, fn. 7.) 1

judgment (sale orders). (Code Civ. Proc., § 704.740, all statutory references are to this code.) We affirm. In 2010, Li filed a malpractice lawsuit against Demas Yan, who represented him in lawsuits concerning property ownership rights. The trial court found Demas had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and was liable for, among other things, professional negligence and fraud. The court entered judgment for Li. To avoid paying the judgment, Demas transferred his ownership in real property to various limited liability companies and to family members — including his mother, Tina, and his brother-in-law, Chiu. (See Li v. Yan (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 56, 59–62.) Demas was eventually declared a vexatious litigant and disbarred. Li filed a fraudulent conveyance complaint against defendants and others. In 2016, the trial court entered judgment for Li and ordered defendants to pay damages and attorney fees. Defendants appealed. We reversed the attorney fee award against defendants but affirmed the judgment in all other respects. (Li I, supra, A149849.) In 2018, the trial court issued the operative second amended judgment (judgment) which, as relevant here, awarded Li $824,180.57 against Tina and $324,167.58 against Chiu. Thereafter, defendants moved to set aside the judgment. They asserted the judgment was void for granting relief unauthorized by the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (Civ. Code, § 3439 et seq.; UVTA). The court denied the motion, and we affirmed. (Li II, supra, A156760.) Defendants thwarted Li’s efforts to enforce the judgment. For example, in May 2019, the trial court issued orders for the sale of defendants’ respective dwellings to satisfy the judgment. Shortly thereafter, defendants conveyed a percentage of their real property to a limited liability company (LLC) created and controlled by their relatives. The LLC then declared