Los Angeles Federal Credit Union v. Ahmad CA2/8

Filed 11/8/22 Los Angeles Federal Credit Union v. Ahmad CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

LOS ANGELES FEDERAL B320843 CREDIT UNION, Los Angeles County Plaintiff and Respondent, Superior Ct. No. 18TRCV00201 v.

TANVIR M. AHMAD et al., Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Deirdre Hill, Judge. Affirmed.

Yates Litigation and John R. Yates for Defendants and Appellants.

Anaya Law Group, Alana B. Anaya and Joseph P. Graziano for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________

Brothers Tanvir and Wasim Ahmad (the Ahmads) obtained a judgment in their favor in the underlying action. Los Angeles Federal Credit Union (LAFCU) had sued them to recover funds transferred to them by their now deceased father Chaudhry Muhammad. The Ahmads sought attorney fees as the prevailing parties pursuant to loan and credit card agreements between Muhammad and LAFCU. The trial court denied their motion, and the Ahmads now appeal, contending the trial court erred. We see no error and affirm the trial court’s order. BACKGROUND After suffering a serious illness in his old age, Muhammad transferred about $229,000 in cash to the Ahmads and placed three pieces of real property in an irrevocable trust. Then Muhammad and his new wife incurred approximately $32,000 in debt with LAFCU. In 2018, Muhammad stopped making payments on that debt to LAFCU. LACFU obtained a default judgment against Muhammad, who later died with no assets. In the action underlying this appeal, LAFCU then sought to collect the judgment from the Ahmads, on the theory that Muhammad’s transfers to them were fraudulent within the meaning of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act, specifically Civil Code section 3439.04.1 Following a bench trial, the trial court found LAFCU had failed to prove Muhammad had an actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud LAFCU and entered judgment in favor of the Ahmads. The Ahmads then sought attorney fees pursuant to section 1717. The trial court denied their motion, finding that the Ahmads had not shown any contractual or statutory