Creditors Adjustment Bureau v. Imani

Filed 8/9/22 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT 2d Civil No. B316546 BUREAU, INC., (Super. Ct. No. 56-2013- 00438287-CU-BA-VTA) Plaintiff, Cross-defendant (Ventura County) and Respondent,

v.

RAY IMANI,

Defendant, Cross- complainant and Appellant.

Over twenty five years ago, we stated the unremarkable: “The purpose of the law of contracts is to protect the reasonable expectations of the parties . . . . There is . . . a price to be paid for breach of contract.” (Ben-Zvi v. Edmar Co. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 468, 475.) Here, we protect the reasonable expectations of the parties. And there is still a price to be paid for breach of contract. Ray Imani appeals the order denying his motion to vacate the judgment entered against him for $251,200.13 after he failed to pay $30,000 as required pursuant to a stipulation for

entry of judgment. Appellant contends the trial court erred because the judgment is an unenforceable penalty and is therefore void. We disagree. The stipulated judgment, which respondent agreed to accept is the exact amount of damages suffered by respondent. Although appellant characterizes the stipulated damages as a penalty and/or liquidated damage provision, it is not. A party to a contract, here a lease and then a stipulated settlement, cannot pick and choose favorable aspects of the agreements while jettisoning the unfavorable aspects. A person should not be rewarded for a breach of contract. “He who takes the benefit must bear the burden.” (Civ. Code, § 3521.) Appellant took the benefit of the original lease. This gave him a long-term lease for what we assume was the market price for a commercial real property lease. He took the benefit of the settlement agreement. This was an extremely favorable financial settlement. And now, after years of defaults, he seeks the benefit of the settlement agreement. Were we to reverse, this would, in essence, be a decree awarding specific performance of the 2015 stipulated judgment. He who seeks equity, must do equity and have “clean hands.” Appellant has not acted equitably and he does not have “clean hands.” The time for performance pursuant to the breached 2015 stipulated judgment has expired. We will affirm the order denying the motion to vacate the $251,200.13 judgment. Facts and Procedural History In January 2012, appellant leased a hair salon space from Baldwin Park Plaza LLC (landlord). The lease was for a term of 10 years and provided for a monthly base rent of $2,695, monthly common area charges of $605 and an annual increase in the base rent of 3%. Rent payments were to begin on March 1,