Filed 10/26/20 Garcia v. First Metropolitan Mortgage CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

ALICIA GARCIA,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

FIRST METROPOLITAN 

MORTGAGE CORP. et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

 B292856

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. BC623630)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court for Los 

Angeles County, Gregory Wilson Alarcon, Judge. Affirmed.

Alicia Garcia, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Hennelly & Grossfeld and Anthony C. Kohrs for 

Defendants and Respondents.
2

Appellant Alicia Garcia filed a wrongful foreclosure action. 

A jury tried her case and found in favor of respondent First 

Metropolitan Mortgage Corporation (FMMC). Acting in propria 

persona, appellant challenges the judgment.

We affirm the judgment because (1) appellant did not 

supply a reporter’s transcript of the trial, which prevents us from 

reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence; (2) appellant’s brief 

contains no discernible argument; and (3) appellant lacks 

standing because she admittedly deeded away the foreclosed 

property in 2008, and the corporation that actually owns the 

property did not appeal the judgment.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In 2006, appellant obtained loans from respondent First 

Metropolitan Funding Corporation. The loans were secured by 

deeds of trust on real property on Patton Street in Los Angeles

(the Property). Appellant defaulted on the debt in 2015; a notice 

of trustee’s sale was recorded. The Property sold at public 

auction in 2016.

After the trustee’s sale, FMMC filed an unlawful detainer 

action against appellant. One month later, appellant filed this 

lawsuit alleging fraud and seeking to set aside the foreclosure. 

Appellant’s coplaintiffs are Karen Lopez Garcia and I.C.A. 

Investments, Inc.1

Appellant moved to consolidate FMMC’s unlawful detainer 

action with her wrongful foreclosure action, without success. The 

unlawful detainer action was tried by a jury; FMMC prevailed.

Appellant’s trial brief in the wrongful foreclosure action 

states that she and Karen Garcia “were owners of a residence 

1 The coplaintiffs are not parties to this appeal.
3

located at 347 Patton Street, Los Angeles, CA 90026. In 2008, 

[appellant] and Karen placed the property in the name of their 

corporation I.C.A. Investments, Inc.” The Garcias obtained a 

loan from respondents in March 2006 for $480,000 and were

allegedly “coerced” into a second loan in October 2006 that 

increased their total debt to $507,000. They contended that they 

were not in arrears on their loan payments.

A jury trial was held in February 2018. During trial, the 

court directed a verdict against appellant and Karen Garcia, 

leaving I.C.A as the sole plaintiff. It also directed a verdict as to 

causes of action against respondent FMMC executive Alan Fattal

because “alter ego issues can be handled post-judgment.”

In a special verdict, the jury found that respondents did not 

overstate the amount of the default; respondents complied with 

notice requirements for the trustee’s sale; I.C.A. Investments did 

not suffer harm as a result of the trustee’s sale; respondents did 

not cause harm; I.C.A. Investments did not reinstate the debt by 

tendering missed payments and other costs.

On September 5, 2018, the court entered judgment for 

respondents. The judgment includes directed verdicts against 

appellant and Karen Garcia. Appellant filed a notice of appeal.

DISCUSSION

This appeal is taken from the judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., 

§ 904.1, subd. (a)(1).) Appellant challenges the evidence 

supporting the judgment. She contends that there is insufficient 

evidence to support jury findings that proper notice was given for 

the trustee’s sale of the Property or that the amount of the loan 

default was proved.

We cannot review the sufficiency of the evidence because 

appellant did not provide a reporter’s transcript. In designating
4

the record, appellant checked a box stating, “I elect to proceed 

WITHOUT a record of the oral proceedings in the superior court. 

I understand that without a record of the oral proceedings in the 

superior court, the Court of Appeal will not be able to consider 

what was said during those proceedings in determining whether 

an error was made in the superior court proceedings.”

When no trial transcript is transmitted for our review, we 

must presume that all findings are supported by substantial

evidence. (Moriarty v. Carlson (1960) 184 Cal.App.2d 51, 54; 

McMahon v. Merrill (1952) 112 Cal.App.2d 454, 455.) “To put it 

another way, it is presumed that the unreported trial testimony 

would demonstrate the absence of error. [Citation.] 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.)

Apart from submitting an inadequate record, appellant has 

filed an inadequate brief. Her one-page argument consists of 

three headings, three subheadings, and one sentence. She did

not support each point with argument. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 

8.204(a)(1)(B).) For example, the heading of her third argument 

reads, “Evidence that would have changed the outcome of the 

case was not admitted into the case.” Nothing follows the 

heading to explain what evidence was excluded or how it would 

have changed the outcome of the case.

Appellant’s brief is too vague to allow review. “An 

appellate court is not required to examine undeveloped claims, 

nor to make arguments for the parties.” (Paterno v. State of 

California (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 68, 106.) The absence of 

argument supported by evidence deprives respondents of a fair 
5

opportunity to answer with opposing evidence or case citations. 

(People v. Roscoe (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 829, 840.)

Appellant does not dispute that I.C.A. Investments was the 

owner of the Property; I.C.A. did not appeal the judgment against 

it on its claim for wrongful foreclosure. Appellant has not 

demonstrated why, as someone who does not own the Property, 

she has standing to contest the foreclosure.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

LUI, P. J.

We concur:

ASHMANN-GERST, J.

HOFFSTADT, J.