Bolgar
v. Glen Donald Apartments
Filed 2/26/13 Bolgar v. Glen
Donald Apartments CA2/1
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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
ONE
PETER BOLGAR,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
GLEN DONALD APARTMENTS, INC.,
Defendant and
Respondent.
B241636
(Los
Angeles County
Super. Ct.
No. BC372736)
APPEAL from
an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County.
Mary Ann Murphy, Judge.
Affirmed.
______
Peter
Bolgar, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Hatton,
Petrie & Stackler, Arthur R. Petrie II, and John A. McMahon for Defendant
and Respondent.
______
Peter Bolgar appeals from an order
fixing the amount of an award of attorney
fees and costs in favor of Glen Donald Apartments, Inc. (Glen Donald). We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Our opinion
in a previous appeal in this litigation summarized the proceedings as
follows: “Bolgar owns a one-bedroom unit
in Glen Donald Apartments, a 94-unit common interest development in Los
Angeles. His
suit against Glen Donald and various other defendants was originally dismissed
after the superior court sustained defendants’ demurrers without leave to
amend. Bolgar appealed, and we reversed
in part, concluding that Bolgar had adequately alleged a claim that Glen Donald
had overcharged him for certain assessments.
As we explained, ‘[u]nless the governing documents provide otherwise,
monthly assessments and special assessments must be imposed equally on a per
unit basis.’ (Bolgar v. Harris Properties, Inc.
(June 2, 2009, B208257)
[nonpub. opn.].) We affirmed the
dismissal of the complaint as to all other claims and defendants.
“On remand,
Glen Donald moved for summary judgment.
Glen Donald introduced evidence
showing that the common interest development’s governing documents provide that
certain assessments are calculated in proportion to each unit’s share of the
total value of the development, while other assessments are imposed equally on
a per unit basis. Glen Donald also
introduced evidence showing that the assessments imposed on Bolgar were either
proportional to his unit’s share of the total value of the development or equal
to the other units’ assessments, in compliance with the governing documents and
the law as stated in our prior opinion.
“The
heard on June 4, 2010, but
the court continued the hearing to July
7, 2010, in order to give Bolgar an opportunity to file a properly
sworn declaration in opposition. At the
continued hearing on July 7, the court granted the motion. The court entered judgment on July 27, 2010, and Bolgar timely
appealed.†(Bolgar v. Glen Donald Apartments, Inc. (Sept. 22, 2011, B226583 [nonpub. opn.].) We affirmed the judgment in favor of Glen
Donald. (Ibid.)
The trial
court’s docket reflects that on remand Glen Donald moved to fix the amount of
attorney fees they should be awarded and also filed a memorandum of costs.
hearing. At the continued hearing on May 16, 2012, the court granted the
motion.
On May 31,
2012, Bolgar filed a notice of appeal from “[a]n order after judgment under
904.1(a)(2)†and from “[a]n order or judgment under Code of Civil Procedure
section 904.1(a)(3)-(13).†The
of the order or judgment from which Bolgar appealed. As far as we can determine from the docket,
the only order that had been entered since receipt of the remittitur in the
preceding appeal was the May 16, 2012,
order fixing the amount of attorney fees and costs.
On June 25, 2012, the trial court
entered an amended judgment, awarding attorney fees and costs to Glen Donald in
the amount of $71,934.65.
DISCUSSION
On appeal,
an order of the superior court is presumed to be correct. (Denham
v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) “‘All intendments and presumptions are
indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error
must be affirmatively shown. This is not
only a general principle
of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of
reversible error.’ [Citations.]†(Ibid.) Accordingly, in order to prevail on appeal,
the appellant must present sufficient argument and legal authority (
344, 368) and a sufficient record (Oliveira
v. Kiesler (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1349, 1362) to demonstrate prejudicial
error. We review the trial court’s
determination of the amount of an award of costs and attorney fees for abuse of
discretion. (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095;
Locker Service, Inc. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 612, 617.)
Bolgar’s
briefs on appeal contain no arguments for the conclusion that the trial court
abused its discretion when it determined the amount of the award of costs and
attorney fees. Bolgar’s designation of
the record on appeal did not call for the clerk’s transcript to include Glen Donald’s
motion to fix the amount of the award; it also did not call for the clerk’s
transcript to include any of the other documents Glen Donald filed in support
of the motion. The clerk’s transcript
consequently contains none of those documents, and we must presume that the
motion and other supporting documents contain adequate support for the trial
court’s ruling. (Denham v. Superior Court, supra,
2 Cal.3d at p. 564.)
For all of
the foregoing reasons, we must affirm the trial court’s order fixing the amount
of the award of costs and attorney fees.
DISPOSITION
The order
is affirmed. Respondent shall recover
its costs of appeal.
NOT TO
BE PUBLISHED.
ROTHSCHILD,
J.
We concur:
MALLANO,
P. J. CHANEY,
J.
while Bolgar’s appeal from the summary judgment in favor of Glen Donald was
pending, Glen Donald filed a motion “to determine prevailing party.†Bolgar opposed this “motion for attorney
fees.†The court granted the motion on
November 19, 2010. Bolgar never appealed
from the order granting the motion. His
designation of the record for the present appeal did not include the motion,
his opposition, or the order granting the motion.
