Court Opinion

ID: 9838955
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-08 23:04:10.319475+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:58.830667
License: Public Domain

Filed 9/8/23 Borazjoni v. Boostani CA2/8
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

JOHN BORAZJONI,                                                 B316353

      Plaintiff and Appellant,                                  Los Angeles County
                                                                Super. Ct. No.
         v.                                                     18VECV00041

HOOSHANG BOOSTANI, et al.

      Defendants and Respondents.
                                                                B322158
JOHN BORAZJONI,
                                                                Los Angeles County
      Plaintiff and Appellant,                                  Super. Ct. No.
                                                                LC106139
         v.

HOOSHANG BOOSTANI,

      Defendant and Respondent.
       APPEAL from judgment and order of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Huey P. Cotton, Judge. Affirmed.
       John Borazjoni, in pro per, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
       No appearance for Defendant and Respondent Hooshang
Boostani.
       Ecoff Campain Tilles & Kay, Lawrence C. Ecoff, Alberto J.
Campain and Kevin Trent Kay for Defendants and Respondents
Tannaz Boostani Rezvani and Farbod Rezvani.
                         ____________________
       In these consolidated cases, John Borazjoni alleged
Hooshang Boostani fraudulently transferred his Coldwater
Canyon Drive house to his daughter and son-in-law. The trial
court ruled Borazjoni failed to prove his case in a bench trial, and
then denied Borazjoni’s motion for an order to sell the house.
Borazjoni separately appealed these defeats. We treat both in
one opinion. We affirm.
                                   I
         Borazjoni sued Boostani in 2017 for breach of contract,
fraud, and allied claims. This is trial court case number
LC106139. Borazjoni obtained a default judgment of some $2.8
million against Boostani in 2018 in that case.
       Borazjoni filed a second suit against Boostani in 2018. This
suit is trial court case number 18VECV00041. This complaint
alleged three counts of fraudulent transfer concerning Boostani’s
house on Coldwater Canyon Drive. Borazjoni verified this
complaint as well. In addition to Boostani, this complaint named
Tannaz Boostani Rezvani and her husband Farbod Rezvani as co-
defendants.

                                 2
       This complaint alleged that Tannaz Rezvani was Boostani’s
daughter, and that on May 28, 2013 Boostani had conveyed his
Coldwater house to her and her husband to evade Borazjoni’s
effort to collect on his default judgment.
       Case 18VECV00041, the fraudulent transfer matter, went
to trial on June 14, 2021. Borazjoni represented himself at this
bench trial. On the defense side, attorneys for Tannaz Boostani
Rezvani and Farbod Rezvani participated in the trial, but the
Rezvanis themselves did not come to court. Borazjoni testified
and was cross-examined, and both sides argued. The court
announced a verdict against Borazjoni and asked counsel for the
Rezvanis to prepare a judgment. The court signed the judgment
on August 18, 2021.
       In our appeal, case number B316353, Borazjoni complains
this fraudulent transfer judgment was in error.
       Shifting back to case LC106139, Borazjoni filed an ex parte
motion on November 9, 2021 for an order to sell the Coldwater
house. He refiled this motion on January 14, 2022. The court
denied this motion without prejudice on February 24, 2022.
Borazjoni filed additional documents, but the Rezvanis opposed
the motion, saying the judgment debtor Boostani did not own the
Coldwater house, but rather they did, and they owed Borazjoni
nothing. Borazjoni has not included in our record the court’s
later ruling on his motion to sell the Coldwater house, but
evidently it was unfavorable to him, for he has filed an appeal in
this case LC106139 as well. Our docket number on this second
appeal is B322158.

                                3
                                II
       We affirm the trial court.
       First we take up Borazjoni’s appeal in B316353, which is
his case about the alleged fraudulent transfer.
       A fraudulent conveyance is a transfer by the debtor of
property to a third person undertaken with the intent to prevent
a creditor from reaching that interest to satisfy its claim.
(Nautilus, Inc. v. Yang (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 33, 39.) The key
issue—whether a transfer is made with fraudulent intent—is one
we review according to the substantial evidence rule. (Id. at
p. 40.)
       Borazjoni says six errors plague the trial judgment against
him.
       Error one, Borazjoni asserts, is that the judgment is
against the law and the facts. In essence, Borazjoni’s argument
seeks to retry his case on appeal by explaining his trial proof was
strong and he deserved to win.
       Whether a conveyance was made with fraudulent intent is
a question of fact, and proof often consists of inferences from
circumstances surrounding the transfer. (Filip v. Bucurenciu
(2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 825, 834.)
       One important circumstance is whether the person
transferring the asset is insolvent. (See Civ. Code § 3439.04,
subd. (b)(9).)
       Borazjoni failed to prove Boostani was insolvent.
Insolvency is presumed when debtors generally are not paying
their debts as they become due. (Civ. Code, § 3439.02, subd. (b).)
Borazjoni had no evidence that Boostani generally was failing to
pay his debts on time. Borazjoni had not deposed Boostani and
had no admissible evidence about Boostani’s supposed insolvency.

                                4
To the contrary, at his deposition Borazjoni testified that
Boostani was “rich” and drove a Mercedes Benz and a Rolls
Royce. In this deposition, Borazjoni also testified Boostani partly
owned a pharmacy, which Borazjoni had seen. Boostani had
$180,000 in his checking account.
       Borazjoni also swore he always thought Boostani could
afford to pay the $1.75 million. Indeed, Borazjoni testified he
believed Boostani could pay one hundred times that sum.
       Borazjoni’s failure of proof on the insolvency element
means he did not establish his case at trial. The statute lists
insolvency as a factor the court may consider in determining
fraudulent intent. (Civ. Code, § 3439.04, subd. (b)(9).) We defer
to the trial court’s evaluation of the evidence and uphold its
verdict and judgment. Substantial evidence supported the trial
court’s decision.
       Error two, Borazjoni argues, is that the judgment is against
the finding at trial. Borazjoni notes the trial court began its oral
statement of decision by saying Borazjoni had met his burden as
to Boostani. In the next sentence, however, the court
immediately negated this statement by noting that “[t]he
problem is that I’m not sure what you’ve proven as to Mr.
Boostani, except that, as you’ve just argued, you believe he owns
the property.” The court’s oral statements, read in context and in
their entirety, made clear its verdict was for the defendants and
against Borazjoni. The written judgment meshed with the full
context of the court’s oral statements at trial.
       Borazjoni complains the court “unwittingly and
erroneously” entered judgment for the defendants, and in
particular signed a judgment that extinguished the recording of
the default judgment against the Coldwater house. This

                                 5
extinguishing of Borazjoni’s recording, however, was the
concomitant of the court’s ruling that Borazjoni had not proven
his fraudulent conveyance case. Borazjoni’s default judgment
was against Boostani. Once the court had determined this house
did not belong to Boostani, it was logical to extinguish the
recording of a default judgment against a house that did not
belong to him. There was no basis for recording any cloud on the
title to a house legally unconnected to Borazjoni or Boostani.
       Error three, argues Borazjoni, is that the court did not
order any defendant to appear at trial. Borazjoni, however, fails
to establish he issued a notice to appear or a subpoena for these
people. We cannot overturn a judgment in this situation.
       Error four concerns Boostani’s declaration in the
fraudulent conveyance case submitted in opposition to Borazjoni’s
motion for summary adjudication or summary judgment.
Borazjoni condemns this document as unsigned and from a
person who defaulted in Borazjoni’s breach of contract case.
Borazjoni is appealing from his loss after trial; any error in his
earlier loss of a summary judgment motion is now harmless. (See
California Housing Finance Agency v. Hanover/California Mgmt.
& Accounting Ctr., Inc. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 682, 688–689.)
       Error five is Borazjoni’s assertion that the signatures on
Tannaz Boostani’s declarations “appear” to be forgeries because
the signatures are not identical. The trial court rejected this
claim when Borazjoni offered no further evidence on this point.
The trial court did not err by finding the evidence insufficient to
prove forgery.
       Error six is about summary judgment documents the court
apparently misplaced or lost and then replaced with copies.
Borazjoni does not explain how this harmless glitch earlier in the

                                6
proceedings affected his later trial on the merits. He suggests the
documents were “destroyed or stolen” and says “the real question
is who [was] behind the illegal action.” This charge of a
conspiracy within the trial court lacks an evidentiary basis.
       We turn now to the appeal in B322158, which attacks the
trial court’s decision to deny Borazjoni’s motion to sell the
Coldwater house. Borazjoni offers two arguments on this score.
Neither has merit.
       First, Borazjoni maintains the denial of his motion to sell
the Coldwater house was unjust and was against the law and the
facts. This is not so. Borazjoni held a default judgment against
Boostani and against no one else. Someone else owned the
Coldwater house at the time he requested the order of sale.
Borazjoni had no rights against those third parties or their
property. Borazjoni had attempted to show the property actually
belonged to Boostani by virtue of Boostani’s fraudulent
conveyance. This theory failed at trial.
       Second, Borazjoni argues the trial court erred by
considering the opposition to his sale motion filed by Tannaz and
Farbod Rezvani: Boostani’s daughter and son-in-law. Borazjoni
argues that title records show the Coldwater house is held by a
Rezvani family LLC and not by Tannaz and Farbod Rezvani
personally, and therefore the court should not have considered
opposition papers filed by the individuals rather than by their
LLC. The key point, however, is that the Coldwater house was
not owned by Boostani, who was the only person against whom
Borazjoni held a judgment. To satisfy a judgment against
Boostani, Borazjoni could not sell property belonging to someone
other than Boostani. The court’s order was proper.

                                7
       In their responsive brief, the Rezvanis move to dismiss the
appeal or to strike portions of the Appellant’s Appendix and
references to the Reporter’s Transcript they assert are defective
or irregular. Because the Rezvanis have won on the merits, we
deny these motions as moot.
                          DISPOSITION
       We affirm the judgment and order of the trial court and
award costs to Tannaz and Farbod Rezvani in appeal B316353.

                                          WILEY, J.

We concur:

             STRATTON, P. J.

             VIRAMONTES, J.

                                 8