Filed 10/26/20 Garcia v. First Metropolitan Mort gage 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

,

Defendant s and Respondent s

. B292856

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC623630 )

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superio r Court for Los Angeles County, Gregory Wilson Alarcon , Judge. Affir med. Alicia Garcia, in pro. p er., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
H ennelly & Grossfeld and Anthony C. Kohrs for
Defendant s and Respondent s

.2 Appellant Alicia Garcia fil ed a wrongful foreclosure action. A jury tried he r 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 pr events 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 th e 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 P roperty 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 alleg ing fraud and seeking to set aside the foreclosure.
A ppellant ’s coplaintiffs are Karen Lopez Ga rcia 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 wron gful foreclosure action

state s 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 G arcia s obtained a loan from respondent s in March 2006 for $48 0 ,000 and were alleged ly “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 hel d in February 2018. During trial , the
court directed a verdict a gainst appellant and Karen Garcia

, leaving I.C.A as the sole plaintiff . I t 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 respondent s did not overstate the amount of the default; respondent s complied with notice requ irements for the trustee’s sale; I.C.A. Investments did not suffer harm as a result of the trustee’s sale; respondent s 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 respondent s

. The judgment includes directed verdicts against appellant and Karen Garcia. Appellant filed a notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
This a ppeal i s taken from the judgment. ( Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd. (a)(1).) Appell ant 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 designatin g4

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.”
Whe n no tri al transcript is transmitted f o r our review, we must presume that all findings are supported by su bstantial 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 pre sumed that the unreported trial testimony
would de monstrate 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 s ufficiency 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 on e sentence. She did not support each point with argument. (Cal. Rules of Court, r ule 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.” No thing follows the
h eading 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 respondent s of a fair5

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.