Sanger v. Ahn CA1/1

Filed 11/29/23 Sanger v. Ahn CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

PRIYA SANGER et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, A165560

v. (San Francisco City and County AHE AHN, Super. Ct. No. CGC-17-557610) Defendant and Respondent.

Plaintiffs Priya and Michael Sanger (the Sangers) appeal from a judgment in favor of defendant Ahe Ahn, entered after the trial court rejected the Sangers’ claim that a deed of trust should be set aside as a voidable transfer. In this memorandum opinion, we affirm.1 The Sangers owned a multi-unit residential building in San Francisco as tenants in common with Leah Ahn, Ahe’s daughter.2 After Leah failed to pay her portion of mortgage payments, she and the Sangers were embroiled in multiple arbitration and court proceedings. These proceedings included

1 A memorandum opinion disposes of cases that raise “no substantial

issues of law or fact,” including appeals that raise “factual issues that are determined by the substantial evidence rule.” (California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1.) 2 We refer to the Ahns by their first names for the sake of clarity.

1

several appeals to this court that were resolved in favor of the Sangers. (See Sanger v. Ahn (June 28, 2016, A145714) [nonpub. opn.]; Ahn v. Sanger (Jan. 15, 2021, A157260, A157935 [nonpub. opn.].) As a result of these proceedings, Leah was required to return funds to a joint tenants’ account, pay her share of missed mortgage payments, and pay the Sangers their costs and attorney fees. In this case, the Sangers sued Ahe, claiming that a deed of trust that Leah filed on the property in 2013 to secure an alleged loan from Ahe should be set aside as a “voidable fraudulent transfer.” They also sought damages, punitive damages, costs, and attorney fees. The case was tried to the court, which issued a tentative decision in favor of Ahe. After considering the parties’ objections and requests for clarification, the court entered a final ruling and judgment, again in Ahe’s favor. The Sangers appealed after their motion for new trial was denied. The case is governed by Civil Code section 3439.04 (section 3439.04), which provides that transfers and obligations are voidable as to creditors when certain conditions are met. One of these conditions is at the center of this appeal, and it requires the transfer or obligation to have been made “[w]ithout receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange.” (§ 3439.04, subd. (a)(2).) The Sangers alleged that Leah filed the deed of trust without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for it. The trial court disagreed. It found that, although “there [was] little or no documentation” of the transaction, Ahe provided money to Leah in the total amount of $600,000. The Sangers contend that if this sum was provided, it was a gift and not a loan extended in exchange for the deed of trust. As the trial court put it, the “Sangers’ case depends on [a] finding that the money sen[t] to Leah, in total