Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Spero Pappas v. Christopher Castro et al

September 19, 2011

SPERO PAPPAS, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
v.
CHRISTOPHER CASTRO ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.



(Super. Ct. No. SCV24990)

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Blease , J.

Pappas v. Castro

CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

Defendants Christopher Castro and Henry Lopez appeal, in propria persona, from a final judgment after court trial. For the reasons stated below, we shall affirm. Castro and Lopez have elected to proceed on a clerk's transcript. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.121.) Thus, the appellate record does not include a reporter's transcript of the hearing in this matter. This is referred to as a "judgment roll" appeal. (Allen v. Toten (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 1079, 1082- 1083; Krueger v. Bank of America (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 204, 207.)

The limited record we have establishes the following:

In 2006, plaintiff Spero Pappas "was looking for [a] place to invest the sum of $50,000 in high interest real estate loans." Castro, who is licensed by the California Department of Real Estate, and Lopez, his unlicensed assistant, undertook efforts to assist Pappas in that regard. The ensuing transaction resulted in the lender's default, followed by a sale of the first deed of trust and, ultimately, financial loss to Pappas.

Pappas filed a complaint against Castro and Lopez for negligence, fraud and misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty. The parties participated in a court trial, at the conclusion of which the court entered judgment in favor of Pappas.

On June 1, 2010, in response to a request by Pappas, the court issued a Statement of Decision setting forth the court's findings and entering judgment in favor of Pappas in the amount of $50,000 plus prejudgment interest at the legal rate, inclusive of amounts earned by Castro and Lopez in the transaction. The court denied any application for punitive damages "for failure of proof."

On June 22, 2010, the court entered a judgment against Castro and Lopez, jointly and severally, in the principal sum of $50,000, plus prejudgment interest at the legal rate of 10 percent per annum from July 1, 2007, through June 15, 2010, in the sum of $14,794.52, for a total sum due to Pappas of $64,794.52. The court also awarded Pappas costs to be established by a memorandum of costs.

Castro and Lopez filed timely notices of appeal.

DISCUSSION

When an appeal is "on the judgment roll" (Allen v. Toten, supra, 172 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1082-1083), we must conclusively presume evidence was presented that is sufficient to support the court's findings. (Ehrler v. Ehrler (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 147, 154.) Our review is limited to determining whether any error "appears on the face of the record." (National ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.