Sheats v. Sheats-Okaidjan CA2/1

Filed 11/20/23 Sheats v. Sheats-Okaidjan CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

SHAWENTI SHEATS, B319734

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County v. Super. Ct. No. BC664896)

PATRICIA SHEATS-OKAIDJAN,

Defendant;

GOLTHA GREEN,

Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Malcolm H. Mackey, Judge. Dismissed. Law Office of Freddie Fletcher and Freddie Fletcher for Appellant Goltha Green. Gordon │ Gordon │ Lawyers and Errol J. Gordon for Plaintiff and Respondent Shawenti Sheats. _______________

Appellant Goltha Green, as the successor in interest to Joseph Gonzalez, challenges an order from an action for partition between four siblings, including plaintiff and respondent Shawenti Sheats. The challenged order required the court clerk to execute, on Gonzalez’s behalf, a full reconveyance of Gonzalez’s deed of trust encumbering the property at issue in the partition action, as well as a beneficiary demand seeking payment under the corresponding promissory note held by Gonzalez. We agree with respondent that this order is not appealable and dismiss the appeal.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. Underlying Lawsuit for Partition In 1996, four siblings—Shawenti Sheats, Patricia Sheats- Okaidjan, Brian Dent and Roxanne Hart—were each granted a quarter ownership interest, as tenants in common, in real property (the property). Sheats-Okaidjan forged a series of deeds transferring title to the property solely to herself, then procured a series of loans secured with deeds of trust on the property. The three defrauded siblings commenced an action against her, the operative complaint in which alleged causes of action for partition and declaratory relief. In 2019, the court entered an interlocutory judgment reinstating the siblings’ interests in the property. The case, however, continued for several years thereafter, in connection with efforts to partition the property by selling it and distributing the sale proceeds.