Madison v. Spielfogel CA2/5
Filed 11/29/22 Madison v. Spielfogel CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
KYLE MADISON et al., B314272
Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. v. No. BC626872)
DANIEL J. SPIELFOGEL,
Defendant and Respondent.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Rupert A. Byrdsong, Judge. Affirmed. Lyle R. Mink for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Nemecek & Cole, Jonathan B. Cole, Marshall R. Cole, and Daniel L. Reback for Defendant and Respondent.
Plaintiffs and appellants Kyle Madison and Marjan Madison (the Madisons) sued defendant and respondent Daniel Spielfogel (Spielfogel), an attorney defending Michael Theodore (Theodore) in a separate suit brought by the Madisons. The Madisons, in their action against Spielfogel, asserted he was liable for conversion because he wrongfully received payments from Theodore that were drawn on accounts into which Theodore had deposited some funds misappropriated from the Madisons. In this appeal from the trial court’s grant of Spielfogel’s motion for summary judgment, we consider whether the Madisons raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the money Spielfogel received rightly belonged to them.
I. BACKGROUND In 2005, the Madisons agreed with Theodore to purchase and remodel “Casa W,” an investment property in Cabo San Lucas, Mexico, that was adjacent to “Casa Theodore,” a rental property Theodore already owned. Theodore and the Madisons created a limited liability company—Casa W, LLC (the LLC)—to purchase, renovate, and operate Casa W. Over the next several years, the relationship between Theodore and the Madisons deteriorated as construction costs ballooned and rental incomes disappointed the parties’ initial expectations. Theodore requested additional funds from the Madisons, and the Madisons began depositing funds into an escrow account because they felt Theodore was not providing them with sufficient information to justify the amounts requested. Theodore eventually changed the locks on Casa W to prevent the Madisons from accessing the house.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)