Lee v. United Escrow Company CA2/7

Filed 3/13/23 Lee v. United Escrow Company CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

CAROLINE S. LEE, B313613

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC697147) v.

UNITED ESCROW COMPANY et al.,

Defendants;

BOW TIE REALTY & INVESTMENT, INC.,

Intervener and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, David Sotelo, Judge. Affirmed. Jack H. Karpeles for Plaintiff and Appellant. Chad Biggins for Intervener and Respondent. __________________________

In Caroline Lee’s first appeal, she challenged a judgment against her on a complaint-in-intervention filed by Bow Tie Realty & Investment, Inc. (Bow Tie), relating to commissions Lee owed on the sale of her real property. (Lee v. Lee et al., B303369 (Lee I).) Lee’s first appeal was dismissed after she failed to comply with this court’s order that she file a notice designating the record on appeal and proof of service of the notice of appeal. Lee now appeals from the trial court’s order awarding to Bow Tie attorneys’ fees and costs incurred on appeal in Lee I. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On March 7, 2018 Lee filed a complaint against Bow Tie, United Escrow Company, and others alleging Lee entered into a listing agreement in 2017 with Bow Tie for the sale of Lee’s real property, and Bow Tie on “the eve of close of escrow” inserted a “false[]” six percent commission on the agreement. Further, United Escrow refused to release the amount of the claimed commission to Lee. Lee asserted causes of action against Bow Tie and United Escrow for breach of contract, resulting trust, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty. The complaint also asserted causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty against Bow Tie’s chief executive officer, Jong Han Lee, and United Escrow’s escrow officer, Tracy Ko. The trial court later dismissed Bow Tie and Jong Han Lee from the action without prejudice, at Lee’s request. On July 17, 2018 Bow Tie filed a complaint-in-intervention, alleging causes of action against Lee for breach of contract, quantum meruit, fraud, and conversion. Bow Tie alleged Lee hired Bow Tie to sell the