Cho v. Patel CA2/5

Filed 9/12/22 Cho v. Patel CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

NAM MIN CHO, B312306

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. 19STCV28254)

BALUBHAI G. PATEL,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Rupert A. Byrdsong, Judge. Affirmed. Law Offices of David Won, David D. Won and David Brand for Plaintiff and Appellant. Frank A. Weiser for Defendant and Respondent.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff and appellant Nam Min Cho prevailed on a summary judgment motion in a quiet title action against defendant and respondent Balubhai Patel, as trustee of the Balubhai Patel Revocable Trust Dated March 14, 2007, as to certain real property. Plaintiff then filed a motion for attorney fees pursuant to an asserted attorney fees provision in the deed of trust on the property and Civil Code section 1717 1. The trial court denied the motion and plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

II. DISCUSSION2

Plaintiff contends the trial court erred when it ruled that the deed of trust did not contain an attorney fees provision. We disagree.

A. Standard of Review

Ordinarily, we review a trial court’s ruling on an attorney fees motion for an abuse of discretion. (Conservatorship of Whitley (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1206, 1213.) When, however, the