The Palm Grove v. Pirozzi CA2/6

California Court of Appeal Jul 6, 2023 No. B320449Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed a post-judgment order distributing proceeds from a court-ordered property sale and awarding additional attorney's fees, finding the trial court acted within its retained jurisdiction and that the appellant's challenges lacked merit.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in awarding post-judgment attorney's fees without a fully noticed motion.
Whether the trial court violated due process by denying the appellant's request to exclude personal items from a court-ordered sale.
Whether the trial court erred by failing to separately value ongoing business operations in the distribution of sale proceeds.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The trial court’s distribution order fell within its retained authority to enforce the judgment.”

“The distribution order did not address the sale of the “business” separately because the judgment did not recognize it as a separate asset in the first place.”

Filed 7/6/23 The Palm Grove v. Pirozzi CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

THE PALM GROVE, LLC, et al., 2d Civil No. B320449 (Super. Ct. No. 20CV02870) Plaintiffs and Respondents, (Santa Barbara County)

ADAM PIROZZI et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

Appellant Adam Pirozzi and respondent Dennis Hoey were business partners in a Santa Barbara golf course venture.1 A dispute arose and Pirozzi agreed to buy Hoey’s interest in the business. Hoey sued when Pirozzi failed to complete the

Appellants are Pirozzi and three co-defendants: 1

Quicklink Asset Services, LLC, Five Deep Entertainment, Inc., and Hidden Oaks Ranch, LLC. A fourth co-defendant, Central Holding Group LLC, is not a party to this appeal. Respondents are Hoey and two co-plaintiffs: The Palm Grove, LLC and Vantage Group Investments, LLC.

purchase. The trial court found Pirozzi in breach of the buyout agreement and ordered the golf course sold on the open market. We affirmed the judgment in a prior appeal.2 Pirozzi now challenges a post-judgment order distributing the proceeds from the golf course sale and awarding Hoey additional attorney’s fees. We again affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND3 Pirozzi and Hoey formed a partnership to acquire Hidden Oaks Golf Course (Hidden Oaks) in 2015. Hoey took title to the property and Pirozzi received a 25-year lease to operate the golf course and clubhouse. Their relationship soured when Pirozzi fell behind on lease payments. Hoey filed two actions in 2019: one to dissolve the partnership and the other to evict Pirozzi.4 They reached a compromise before trial and signed a multi-part settlement agreement (settlement).5 The settlement gave Pirozzi 60 days to buy Hidden Oaks from Hoey for $4.4 million. It stipulated they would sell Hidden Oaks on the open market if

The Palm Grove v. Pirozzi CA2/6

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

CODY, J.

GILBERT, P. J.

YEGAN, J.

AI Brief