Azar v. Azar CA1/3 ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • Filed 10/11/23 Azar v. Azar CA1/3
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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 THREE
    INDRAWOUS AZAR, et al.
    Plaintiffs and Respondents,                            A166609
    v.                                                          (San Mateo County
    Super. Ct. No. 18CIV01833)
    SHIBLI AZAR, et al.,
    Defendants and Appellants.
    This case concerns an interfamilial dispute over the ownership of a
    residential property located in San Bruno (“the property”). Indrawous
    (known as “Andy”), his brother Simon Azar, and Andy’s wife, Nadia Azar, are
    the plaintiffs in this case; we refer to Andy and Simon collectively as
    “plaintiff brothers.”1 A third brother, Shibli Azar, and his wife Naifeh Azar,
    are the defendants.
    Following a bench trial, the court granted judgment in favor of plaintiff
    brothers on their cause of action for a resulting trust; the court found plaintiff
    brothers were the real (beneficial) owners of the property and that defendants
    1
    To avoid confusion, and with no disrespect, we refer to the family
    members by their first names.
    1
    held legal title as trustees with no ownership interest. Because Simon
    waived any beneficial interest in the property, the legal title was quieted and
    confirmed to beneficial owner Andy and Nadia as his wife. The court also
    found, in pertinent part, that the resulting trust cause of action was not
    barred by the statute of limitations.
    On Naifeh’s prior appeal, we reversed the judgment as the statement of
    decision included impermissible and/or irreconcilable findings concerning the
    resolution of two material issues: (1) Shibli’s apparent authority to act for
    Naifeh; and (2) Naifeh’s intent to purchase the property in trust for Andy and
    Simon. (Azar v. Azar (dec. Feb. 25, 2021, A159261) [nonpub. opn.].) Because
    the court’s decision on these two issues could not be separated from its
    rulings on the timeliness and merits of the resulting trust cause of action, we
    did not address Naifeh’s challenges to those rulings. (Id. at p. 2.) We
    directed the trial court to issue a new statement of decision and judgment,
    noting our decision should not be read as expressing any opinion as to how
    the trial court should resolve the material issues submitted by the parties,
    including Naifeh’s intent and Shibli’s apparent authority to act for Naifeh.
    (Id. at p. 8.)
    The case was remanded to the trial court and reassigned to a new judge
    as the judge who previously handled the matter had retired. A hearing was
    convened on July 12, 2022, at which plaintiffs and defendants were
    represented by counsel, to discuss the process moving forward. Following
    argument, the court found all parties had agreed no further evidentiary
    hearing was necessary for the court to issue an amended statement of
    decision.
    On August 22, 2022, the trial court issued its final statement of
    decision and judgment (one document), again imposing a resulting trust in
    2
    favor of plaintiff brothers and finding that defendants held legal title as
    trustees with no ownership interest. Because Simon waived any beneficial
    interest in the property, the legal title was quieted and confirmed to
    beneficial owner Andy and Nadia as his wife. The court also found, in
    pertinent part, that (1) the resulting trust cause of action was not barred by
    the statute of limitations, and (2) in light of the imposition of a resulting trust
    the court made no findings on a cause of action for breach of contract
    premised on the parties’ alleged 1981 contract for the exchange of certain
    properties.
    Naifeh filed a timely notice of appeal from the August 22, 2022
    judgment. Having considered her arguments, we conclude she has not
    demonstrated any basis for reversal and shall affirm.
    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2
    This action was commenced in 2018 to resolve a dispute over the
    ownership of the property, which had been purchased in 1976. Defendants
    never took possession of the property or lived in the house. Instead, plaintiff
    brothers moved into the house along with other family members and used it
    as their home for the next 40 plus years. At the time this lawsuit was filed,
    Andy and his wife Nadia were still living in the house.
    Statement of Decision
    The trial court’s final statement of decision detailed the findings in
    support of its conclusion that plaintiff brothers met their burden of showing,
    2
    Because the record on appeal consists solely of a clerk’s transcript with
    limited documents, and with no reporter’s transcripts of the original bench
    trial or the July 12, 2022 remand hearing, our factual and procedural
    background is taken from our prior opinion (Azar v. Azar (dec. Feb. 25, 2021,
    A159261) [nonpub. opn.]) and the trial court’s final statement of decision
    under review on this appeal.
    3
    by clear and convincing evidence, that they were the real (beneficial) owners
    of the property under a resulting trust theory.
    In the 1970s, Shibli and Naifeh lived and worked in the San Francisco
    Bay Area. Shibli’s brothers, Andy and Simon, lived in Michigan and decided
    to move their families to the Bay Area. In December 1976, Andy (then
    unmarried), Simon and his wife and children, the brothers’ mother, and two
    sisters moved to San Bruno.
    Before the move to the Bay Area, Simon and Shibli agreed Shibli and
    his wife Naifeh would obtain a loan to purchase a house (with title in their
    names) to be used by Andy and Simon as it would be difficult for Andy and
    Simon to obtain a home loan. In November 1976, Shibli purchased the
    property, a house in San Bruno. In January 1977, a grant deed for the
    property was recorded in the names of Shibli and Naifeh as husband and
    wife. The purchase price was $69,000; Shibli made a $13,800 cash down
    payment and took out loans.
    Considering the evidence in full, the court found the property was
    purchased for Andy and Simon and their families and that it was the intent
    of the parties to eventually transfer title to Andy and Simon. The court found
    Naifeh’s testimony – that defendants had purchased the house for their own
    use and intended to use it as their personal residence, despite having just
    recently purchased a new house – not credible. And it found Shibli’s
    testimony – that he did not purchase the property for Andy and Simon –
    unreliable due to very limited recall; his testimony was sprinkled with
    statements such as “ ‘I don’t know’ ” and “ ‘I don’t remember’ ”, and he had
    “total blanks on what transpired.” Shibli’s actions were also in conflict with
    any notion that the property was not for Andy and Simon's use as Shibli
    4
    consistently told the parties, his mother, and several of plaintiffs’ children,
    that he (Shibli) was going to transfer title to Andy and Simon.
    The parties disputed the source of the $13,800 cash down payment and
    the source of funds expended on the property over the relevant 40-year
    period. The brothers had a history of loaning money to each other “without
    anything in writing or specific expectations of repayment.” The court found
    Simon had provided sufficient funds (on behalf of himself and Andy) to Shibli
    to cover the down payment and that Shibli’s testimony that the down
    payment came entirely from his grocery store was not credible. The court
    also found that if Shibli used some of his own money toward the down
    payment, those funds were a repayment of previous loans from Simon and,
    therefore, credited as a payment made by Simon.
    The court found that, except for a brief time shortly after Andy and
    Simon moved into the property, plaintiffs had made all the mortgage,
    property tax, home insurance, utility, and remodeling payments; this finding
    was supported by extensive documentation. In contrast, Naifeh had virtually
    no documentation in support of her claim that she made extensive payments
    for the property. “It was this testimony by Naifeh that [led] the court to
    question the credibility of all of her testimony.”
    In 1981, and after family disharmony caused by previous unsuccessful
    attempts to transfer title, the parties reached an agreement. Andy, Simon,
    and Shibli, with Naifeh present and not objecting, agreed that Shibli and
    Naifeh would sign over title to the property. In return, Andy and Simon
    would release their ownership interest in an apartment located in San
    Francisco. Andy and Simon followed through on their part of the agreement,
    but defendants never executed the deed to transfer the property. Two years
    later, defendants’ attorney recorded the deed plaintiff brothers had executed
    5
    for the San Francisco property, and Shibli continued to promise that he
    intended to have the property transferred to Andy and Simon.
    The trial court found “a conflict between what the Plaintiffs alleged
    occurred and what the parties intended and what the Defendants alleged
    occurred and what the parties intended. [Plaintiff brothers] had significant
    documentation and corroboration of their position; while Defendants had
    scarcely any credible or reliable documentation or corroboration of their
    position. In fact, it appears that defendants engaged in intentional
    falsehoods concerning their payments of expenses on the [San Bruno]
    property. For this reason, the court has discounted the testimony from
    defendants and found that, by clear and convincing evidence, plaintiffs[’]
    allegations are supported by the evidence.”
    The trial court specifically addressed the two material issues
    mentioned in our prior opinion: (1) Naifeh’s intent to purchase the property in
    trust for Andy and Simon; and (2) Shibli’s apparent authority to act for
    Naifeh,3 as follows:
    “The parties dispute whether Naifeh intended to purchase the property
    in trust for Plaintiff brothers. They further dispute whether Shibli’s
    promises and actions can bind Naifeh, who purportedly (and secretly)
    objected to any agreement or understanding Shibli had with Plaintiffs in
    regard to holding the property for Plaintiffs, and ultimately transferring title
    to them. Both questions are answered by the conduct of the parties. Naifeh
    remained silent in the presence of Shibli and Plaintiffs when they discussed
    the subject of transferring title. She never spoke up with any objection.
    3
    Accordingly, we reject Naifeh’s argument, made for the first time in her
    reply brief, that the trial court failed to address the issues mentioned in our
    prior appeal.
    6
    “The Court finds that both Shibli’s and Naifeh’s actual intent was to
    hold title to the property for the benefit of Plaintiffs, and to eventually
    transfer the property to Plaintiffs. This intent is inferred by both Shibli’s and
    Naifeh’s conduct over the relevant 40-year period, during which time
    Plaintiffs resided in and made all payments toward the subject property.
    Naifeh testified that, because she feared for her safety from Shibli, she
    remained silent in the presence of Shibli and Plaintiffs when they discussed
    the subject of transferring title. The Court does not find Naifeh’s testimony
    regarding her purported fear for her safety to be credible. Rather, the Court
    finds that any silence on Naifeh’s part during discussions about the
    property’s beneficiary ownership, and during Shibli’s
    statements/representations that Defendants were holding title for Plaintiffs,
    and that Defendants intended to eventually convey title to Plaintiffs, was not
    due to any fear or reluctance to speak, but rather, it was because Naifeh
    consented to and agreed with [Shibli’s] comments that the Property would be
    conveyed to Plaintiffs. (Underlining and italics in original.)
    “The Court further finds that Shibli had apparent/ostensible authority
    to act for Naifeh as her agent, and to bind her to the agreement he made with
    [his] brothers to purchase and hold the property in trust, and to eventually
    convey title to them as the real (beneficial) owners. To be clear, the Court
    does [not] conclude that Shibli had apparent/ostensible authority to speak or
    act for Naifeh merely by virtue of them being married, which . . . itself would
    be insufficient to speak or act for her. Rather, the Court reaches this finding
    based on Naifeh’s conduct over the roughly forty-year period, in which she
    repeatedly remained silent, and expressed no disagreement in the face of
    Shibli’s repeated statements and representations that Shibli and Naifeh were
    holding the property for Plaintiffs and would eventually convey title to
    7
    Plaintiffs. Naifeh must have known that her failure to express disagreement
    with Shibli’s promises and representations would lead any reasonable person
    in Plaintiffs’ position to believe that Naifeh agreed with Shibli’s statements,
    and that Naifeh had the same intention. (See Lovetro v. Steers (1965) 
    234 Cal.App.2d 461
    , 475.) (Underlining in original.)
    “Thus, this Court finds that Naifeh repeatedly and intentionally led
    Plaintiffs to believe that Shibli was speaking for her and expressing her
    intention as well. If Naifeh truly did not agree with Shibli’s repeated
    representations to Plaintiffs and others about the Property (which, again, the
    Court does not find credible), then Naifeh would have had a duty to speak up
    and express such disagreement, because she would have known that her
    failure to do so would be very misleading to Plaintiffs, or to any reasonable
    person in their position. As stated, the Court finds she did not express any
    disagreement because she in fact agreed with Shibli’s representations and
    statements.” (Italics in original.)
    After making additional rulings which will be discussed below to the
    extent they are necessary to resolve Naifeh’s appellate arguments, the trial
    court concluded by explaining that any outcome other than a finding of a
    resulting trust in favor of plaintiff brothers and conveyance of title to them,
    “would be highly inequitable” and an “improper result.” “In the present case,
    Defendant Naifeh Azar claims that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to receive
    the title to the subject property, because she did not consent to the agreement
    to transfer the property to Plaintiffs. Essentially, she believes that she is
    entitled to retain the subject property, despite Plaintiffs having made (except
    for a brief period) all of the first and second mortgage payments, all of the
    property tax payments, all of the home insurance payments, and all of the
    utility payments for the property over a forty-year period. In other words,
    8
    Defendant believes she may retain the benefits of all of Plaintiffs’ financial
    contributions to the property and the property itself by refusing to transfer
    the title thereto. This is a classic case of a Resulting Trust, and the intent of
    the holders of title (Defendants) is inferred by their conduct over the forty
    years Plaintiffs have treated the property as their own. [¶] If Defendants
    were allowed to retain title to the subject property in the face of the instant
    facts, this would result in a clear case of unjust enrichment, a profoundly
    inequitable and demonstrable wrong.”
    DISCUSSION
    Our review of this appeal is significantly impaired by Naifeh’s
    submission of an incomplete record and appellate briefs that fail to comply
    with our California Rules of Court. Naifeh, “[a] party proceeding in propria
    persona ‘is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but
    no greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys.’ ” (First
    American Title Co. v. Mirzaian (2003) 
    108 Cal.App.4th 956
    , 958, fn. 1.)
    Naifeh has perfected her appeal using a clerk’s transcript; she has filed
    no reporter’s transcript or settled statement of the initial bench trial or the
    July 12, 2022 remand hearing. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.122 [clerk’s
    transcript], 8.130 [reporter’s transcript], 8.137 [settled statement].) The
    “trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law [in its final statement of
    decision] therefore are presumed to be supported by substantial evidence and
    are binding upon us, unless the judgment is not supported by the findings or
    reversible error appears on the face of the record.” (Krueger v. Bank of
    America (1983) 
    145 Cal.App.3d 204
    , 207.)
    Additionally, Naifeh’s briefs are rife with factual assertions
    unsupported by any record citations “in dramatic noncompliance with
    appellate procedures.” (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 
    122 Cal.App.4th 1229
    , 1246;
    9
    Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C) [each appellate brief must “[s]upport
    any reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the volume and page
    number of the record where the matter appears”].) Naifeh also raises
    numerous legal arguments without any legal authority or cogent analysis as
    to how or why the court erred or how she was prejudiced by the court’s
    rulings. We will disregard unsupported factual assertions and treat as
    forfeited any legal arguments made without record citations and/or cogent
    arguments and citations to legal authority. (See, e.g., Tellez v. Rich Voss
    Trucking, Inc. (2015) 
    240 Cal.App.4th 1052
    , 1066 [“[w]hen an appellant
    asserts a point but fails to support it with reasoned argument and citations to
    authority, we treat the point as forfeited”]; Falcon v. Long Beach Genetics,
    Inc. (2014) 
    224 Cal.App.4th 1263
    , 1267 [“plaintiffs make numerous factual
    assertions in their briefs without record citation” but “[w]e are entitled to
    disregard such unsupported factual assertions”].)
    Moreover, and before the remand hearing, Naifeh filed a supplemental
    trial brief and related request for judicial notice of certain documents. The
    July 12, 2022 minute order indicates the court disregarded the supplemental
    trial brief and related request for judicial notice as all the issues raised in
    that brief were “irrelevant and not within the scope” of our order on remand.
    On appeal, Naifeh contends the court abused its discretion by doing so.
    However, we cannot meaningfully review Naifeh’s claim of error as we have
    no record of what occurred at the remand hearing and she has presented no
    argument supported by legal authority demonstrating how she was
    prejudiced by the trial court’s ruling. Accordingly, we deem the claim of error
    forfeited and disregard Naifeh’s arguments premised on the factual
    assertions in her supplemental trial brief and the documents that were not
    judicially noticed in the trial court. (See Ehrler v. Ehrler (1981) 126
    
    10 Cal.App.3d 147
    , 154 [appellate court cannot review “evidence” contained in
    trial briefs]; The Travelers Indemnity Co. of Connecticut v. Navigators
    Specialty Ins. Co. (2021) 
    70 Cal.App.5th 341
    , 355 [appellate court did not
    consider a party’s appellate arguments that depended on documents for
    which the trial court denied a request for judicial notice ].)
    With these limitations in mind, we now discuss some of the issues
    presented in Naifeh’s briefs.
    I.    RESULTING TRUST CAUSE OF ACTION
    The law applicable to the imposition of a resulting trust is well settled.
    “[T]he relationship between resulting trustee and beneficiary arises where
    one, in good faith, acquires title to property belonging to another. The law
    implies an obligation on the part of the one in whom title has vested to hold
    the property for the owner’s benefit and eventually convey it to the owner.
    The trustee has no duties to perform, no trust to administer, and no purpose
    to pursue except the single purpose of holding or conveying the property
    according to the beneficiary’s demands.” (Estate of Yool (2007) 
    151 Cal.App.4th 867
    , 874; see Bainbridge v. Stoner (1940) 
    16 Cal.2d 423
    , 428
    (Bainbridge).) In other words, “[t]he duties of a resulting trust[ee] are not
    active; a resulting trustee merely holds legal title for the beneficiary and, at a
    proper time, is bound to make a proper conveyance.” (Seabury v. Costello
    (1962) 
    209 Cal.App.2d 640
    , 646, citing Bainbridge, at p. 428.)
    “ ‘Where the legal title rests in one person, to establish a resulting trust
    for the benefit of another against a presumption in favor of the legal title, the
    evidence must be clear and convincing, especially when an attempt is made to
    establish a resulting trust after the lapse of many years or where parol
    evidence alone is relied upon.’ ” (G.R. Holcomb Estate Co. v. Burke (1935) 
    4 Cal.2d 289
    , 299.)
    11
    A. Trial Court’s Final Statement of Decision Reflects Substantial
    Evidence Supports Factual Findings
    Throughout her briefs, Naifeh asserts the trial court should have
    accepted the testimony and evidence proffered by defendants. Without a
    reporter’s transcript of the original bench trial, “the judgment must be
    conclusively presumed correct as to all evidentiary matters. . . . The effect of
    this rule is that an appellant who attacks a judgment but supplies no
    reporter’s transcript will be precluded from raising an argument as to the
    sufficiency of the evidence.” (Estate of Fain (1999) 
    75 Cal.App.4th 973
    , 992.)
    In addition, based on our review of the portions of the trial transcript
    referenced in the trial court’s final statement of decision, we find the court
    acted well within its discretion in accepting plaintiffs’ testimony and evidence
    and rejecting defendants’ testimony as not being credible.
    We see no merit to Naifeh’s contentions that the trial court
    impermissibly applied “alleged Palestinian cultural values denying property
    rights to women,” and ignored “the rights of women and wives to make
    financial decisions” under California law. The court found Naifeh’s intent to
    hold the property in trust for plaintiff brothers was inferred solely from her
    own conduct over the course of the relevant 40 years during which time
    plaintiff brothers (and later Nadia as Andy’s wife) exclusively possessed and
    resided in the property making all financial expenditures (except for certain
    mortgage payments incurred when Andy and Simon first came to California);
    Naifeh failed to object to plaintiffs treating the property as their own; and
    Naifeh was silent during family discussions when Shibli made repeated
    statements and representations that the property belonged to Andy and
    Simon and title would be transferred to them. The trial court made no
    findings premised on either Naifeh’s status as Shibli’s wife or the parties’
    12
    cultural views concerning a husband’s right to speak for his wife concerning
    financial matters.
    B. Resulting Trust Is Not Barred by Statute of Frauds Requirement of a
    Writing for the Sale or Transfer of Real Estate
    We see no merit to Naifeh’s argument that a resulting trust could not
    be imposed in this case as a matter of law because it violated the requirement
    of a writing for the sale or transfer of real estate as codified in Civil Code
    sections 1091 and 1624.4
    The statutory requirement of a writing as expressed in the law cited by
    Naifeh does not apply to an estate in real property that is the subject of a
    resulting trust implied by law. As long ago explained by our Supreme Court:
    “The trust in this case arises purely by operation of law, and results from the
    acts and agreements of the parties. In such cases the trust need not be
    created by writing, or proved by written evidence, for it comes clearly within
    the exception of the [statute of frauds]. . . . [F]rom the facts that the
    purchase was made with the money of the plaintiffs, and the conveyance
    made to the defendant, the law implies that the title thus conveyed is held in
    trust for the person furnishing the money, and thus the trust is created by
    operation of law. . . . The law is well settled that in cases like the present the
    trust can be proved by parol evidence.” (Bayles v. Baxter (1863) 
    22 Cal. 575
    ,
    579.) In other words, “[t]he fact that transferee and payor of the purchase
    price, and the claimant, made an oral agreement that the former was to hold
    4
    Civil Code section 1091 reads in pertinent part: “An estate in real
    property, . . ., can be transferred only by operation of law, or by an
    instrument in writing, subscribed by the party disposing of the same, or by
    his agent thereto authorized by writing.” Civil Code section 1624, in
    pertinent part, lists several “contracts” that are “invalid, unless they, or some
    note or memorandum thereof, are in writing and subscribed by the party to
    be charged or by the party’s agent.”
    13
    the property in trust for the latter which was unenforceable under the statute
    of frauds or otherwise, does not prevent a resulting trust from arising.
    Indeed, such agreement supports the inference or presumption that the payor
    did not intend that the transferee should have the beneficial interest.” (Viner
    v. Untrecht (1945) 
    26 Cal.2d 261
    , 270 (Viner), disapproved on another ground
    in Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 
    9 Cal.5th 989
    , 1010.)
    C. Evidence of Plaintiff Brothers’ Financial Contributions Supports
    Imposition of Resulting Trust
    We see no merit to Naifeh’s argument that a resulting trust could not
    be imposed in this case as a matter of law because plaintiffs presented no
    evidence establishing the precise amount or proportion of consideration they
    contributed to the purchase of the property and plaintiff brothers made only
    partial mortgage payments.
    Naifeh supports her argument with a citation to Lloyds Bank
    California v. Wells Fargo Bank (1986) 
    187 Cal.App.3d 1038
     (Lloyds), which is
    factually distinguishable. In Lloyds, the appellate court found the resulting
    trust was not supportable as the purported beneficial owners made no
    attempt to submit evidence of the original purchase price or their individual
    financial contributions. (Id. at p. 1044.) Unlike that case, the trial court here
    found plaintiffs had submitted clear and convincing evidence demonstrating
    a “classic case” for the imposition of a resulting trust, based on their financial
    contributions to the purchase price including payment of the entire down
    payment and payment of the first and second mortgage payments (except for
    a brief time) as well as payment of all maintenance expenses over the more
    than 40 years when they exclusively possessed and resided in the residence
    and treated the property as their own. We disregard Naifeh’s citation to an
    14
    unpublished opinion, namely Meyer v. Jeffries (Dec. 10, 2019, E070773), in
    violation of California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a).
    Nor is there any merit to Naifeh’s related argument that no resulting
    trust arises unless the beneficial owner pays the purchase price before or at
    the time of the conveyance. As explained by our Supreme Court in Viner,
    supra, 
    26 Cal.2d 261
    , it is not always necessary that the beneficial owner pay
    the purchase price before or at the time of the conveyance because a resulting
    trust may be imposed where the trustee agrees to finance the purchase price
    in the form of a loan from the trustee to the beneficial owner. (Id. at pp. 269–
    270.) Moreover, it is not necessary that there be an express agreement that
    the beneficiary repay the loan, as an agreement to repay the loan “may be
    implied,” with the trustee of the resulting trust holding the legal title as
    security for the loan. (Id. at p. 270.) Here, at the time of the commencement
    of the action seeking the transfer of title, Naifeh’s need to retain legal title as
    security for the mortgage loans had been rendered moot as the loans had
    been paid off in November 1985 and May 2006.
    Hence, we conclude the trial court appropriately imposed a resulting
    trust based on the parties’ conduct both before and after the purchase of the
    property. The court found the only reasonable inference that could be drawn
    from the evidence, which included the 40-year period in which plaintiffs
    resided in and made all the payments toward the property (except for a brief
    time), was that both Shibli and Naifeh intended to hold the property in trust
    for the benefit of plaintiffs and to transfer title to them. The court also found
    that “Naifeh’s silence” during the 40-year period and “ Shibli’s assurances to
    everyone that his and Naifeh’s intent was to eventually transfer the
    property” to plaintiffs further supported the imposition of a resulting trust.
    We see no error in the trial court’s imposition of a resulting trust.
    15
    D. Resulting Trust Was Not Imposed in Violation of Law Governing
    Community Property
    Naifeh argues the imposition of a resulting trust was in violation of the
    law governing community property and the transmutation of community
    property (Fam. Code, §§ 852, 853). According to Naifeh, the property was
    purchased with community assets; as a result, she was an owner of an
    undivided one-half interest in that property and Shibli could not transfer her
    interest without her consent.
    However, the trial court rejected Naifeh’s position that defendants had
    purchased the property with their own funds and for their own use as
    community property. The court found it was never community property;
    rather it was held in trust for plaintiff brothers, and therefore “ ‘[t]he
    property that we called community property,’ ” was “ ‘impinged by a trust.’ ”
    (Anderson v. Broadwell (1931) 119 Cal. App.130, 141 (Anderson).) Property
    acquired during a marriage on or after January 1, 1975, by either husband or
    wife, or both, including real property situated in this state, is subject to the
    general community property presumption. (See In re Brace (2020) 
    9 Cal.5th 903
    , 924; Fam. Code, § 7605.) This law “does not, however, include property
    held in trust by a spouse [or spouses] for a third person.” (Dreher v.
    Rohrmoser (1955) 
    134 Cal.App.2d 196
    , 199 (Dreher); see Bassett, William W.,
    Cal. Community Property Law (2022 ed; Sept. 2022 update), Shared Property
    Rights in the Community Property System; IV. Contingent Future Interests,
    §3:41 Legal title in trust [“[l]egal title held in trust by a husband or wife for
    5
    Family Code section 760 currently reads: “Except as otherwise provided
    by statute, all property, real or personal, wherever situated, acquired by a
    married person during the marriage while domiciled in this state is
    community property.” (Stats. 1992, ch. 162, § 10, operative January 1, 1994.)
    16
    the benefit of third parties is not community property,” citing in fn. 1 to
    Dreher, supra, 
    134 Cal.App.2d 196
     and Anderson, supra, 
    119 Cal. App. 130
    ].)6
    In sum, plaintiff brothers “had the right to interpose any equitable
    claim which [they] possessed directed to the issues raised by [the complaint],”
    and “there was no error in admitting evidence showing the circumstances
    under which the property here was deeded to [defendants].” (Dreher, supra,
    134 Cal.App.2d at p. 199.) The trial court’s factual findings (discussed ante)
    clearly classified the situation “as a voluntary resulting trust, continuing in
    nature as reflecting the intention of the parties at the time of its creation.”
    (Berniker v. Berniker (1947) 
    30 Cal.2d 439
    , 447; see Bainbridge, supra, 16
    Cal.2d at p. 428.) Having found the legal title had been taken in the names
    of both defendants in trust for the plaintiff brothers, the court’s imposition of
    a resulting trust created a new relationship between the parties –one of
    trustees and beneficiaries – as a matter of law. The plaintiff brothers’ “right
    to obtain the legal title” merely became “an incident to” their recognized
    equitable title as beneficiaries of the resulting trust. (Love v. Watkins (1871)
    
    40 Cal. 547
    , 571.)
    Once the trial court entered judgment granting a resulting trust in
    favor of plaintiff brothers (Andy and Simon) as the real (beneficial) owners,
    Naifeh was a trustee who held legal title for them. The court quieted title in
    the names of the beneficial owner Andy and Nadia as his wife; Simon’s name
    6
    Family Code section 760 derived from Civil Code former section 164,
    enacted in 1872 and later Civil Code former section 5110, added in 1969. At
    the time Anderson supra, 
    119 Cal. App. 130
     was decided in 1931 and Dreher,
    supra, 
    134 Cal.App.2d 196
     was decided in 1955, Civil Code former sections
    162 and 163 defined separate property of the spouses, and Civil Code former
    section 164 read: “All other property acquired after marriage by either
    husband or wife or both, including real property situated in this state . . . is
    community property.” (Stats. 1927, ch. 487, § 1; Stats. 1941, ch. 455, § 1; see
    Dreher, at p. 199.)
    17
    is not on the title as he waived any interest in the property. (See Juranek v.
    Juranek (1938) 
    29 Cal.App.2d 276
    , 281 [in an action to impose a resulting
    trust as to property ownership between family members, the trial court could
    amend the complaint to conform to proof and direct title to be quieted in the
    names of certain plaintiffs and allow “the withdrawal of another member of
    this family” who had sued as a co-plaintiff].)
    II.   STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS NOT VIOLATED
    We find no merit to Naifeh’s argument that the trial court committed
    prejudicial error by its finding that the resulting trust cause of action was not
    barred by the four-year statute of limitations under Code of Civil Procedure
    343.7 As the trial court correctly explained: “The statute of limitation[s] for a
    resulting trust does not run against a [beneficiary’s] right to enforce the trust
    until the beneficiary has knowledge of repudiation or breach of the trust. (13
    Witkin, Summary of California Law (11th ed. 2017) Trusts, § 153, p. 744.)
    The statute begins to run upon a demand by the trustee[ ] or repudiation by
    the trustor. (Martin v. Kehl (1983) 
    145 Cal.App.3d 228
    , 240–241.) There was
    neither an absolute or final demand for performance by plaintiffs nor an
    absolute or final repudiation by defendants. Therefore, the Statute of
    Limitations is not a bar to this cause of action.”
    Naifeh asks us to consider certain factual assertions not supported by
    any record citations, and the cases of McCosker v. McCosker (1954) 
    122 Cal.App.2d 498
     and Rubinstein v. Minchin (1941) 
    46 Cal.App.2d 115
    . As
    already noted, reversible error cannot be demonstrated by assertions of fact
    not supported by record citations or by citation to cases without a reasoned
    7     Code of Civil Procedure section 343 reads: “An action for relief not
    hereinbefore provided for must be commenced within four years after the
    cause of action . . . accrued.”
    18
    argument as to why we should follow those cases. (See Allen v. City of
    Sacramento (2015) 
    234 Cal.App.4th 41
    , 52; Regents of University of California
    v. Sheily (2004) 
    122 Cal.App.4th 824
    , 826–827, fn. 1.)
    We also find unavailing Naifeh’s assertion that the trial court’s citation
    to Martin, supra, 
    145 Cal.App.3d 228
    , is not relevant as it concerned a
    constructive trust and not a resulting trust. In resolving the case before it,
    the Martin court found that although the trial court could employ the remedy
    of a constructive trust to compel the defendant to convey a property interest
    for which the plaintiff had paid, the judgment could also be affirmed on the
    basis of a resulting trust since the express findings of the court would support
    the imposition of such a trust. (Id. at p. 238.) Indeed, the Martin court went
    on to hold that, “[e]ven if the facts pleaded and proved by plaintiff would not
    sustain the judgment on the theory of constructive trust, they were sufficient
    to uphold recovery under the resulting trust theory since that theory does not
    contemplate any factual situation different from that established by the
    evidence in the trial court.” (Id. at p. 239.) As the Martin court discussed the
    statute of limitations governing both constructive trusts and resulting trusts
    (id. at pp. 240–241), the trial court’s citation to that case was appropriate.
    III.   Fifth Cause of Action for Breach of Contract
    The trial court imposed a resulting trust and therefore granted no relief
    on the complaint’s fifth cause of action for breach of contract, a claim
    premised on allegations that in 1981 the parties had entered into a separate
    contract for the exchange of titles to the San Bruno and San Francisco
    properties and defendants had breached that agreement by failing to transfer
    the San Bruno property title to plaintiffs. Because we are upholding the trial
    court’s grant of relief premised on a resulting trust theory, we do not address
    Naifeh’s arguments concerning the fifth cause of action.
    19
    IV.   Conclusion
    We have made a concerted effort to address Naifeh’s arguments. Any
    issue not specifically mentioned is omitted due to her failure to present the
    issue in compliance with the rules governing the adequacy of a record and the
    contents of briefs.
    DISPOSITION
    The August 22, 2022 judgment is affirmed. Plaintiffs and respondents
    are awarded costs on appeal.
    20
    _________________________
    Petrou, J.
    WE CONCUR:
    _________________________
    Fujisaki, Acting P.J.
    _________________________
    Rodríguez, J.
    A166609/Azar et al., v. Azar et al.
    21
    

Document Info

Docket Number: A166609

Filed Date: 10/11/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/11/2023