Hyduke's Valley Motors v. Lobel Financial





















Filed 9/29/10 Hyduke's Valley Motors v. Lobel Financial
CA4/3









NOT TO BE
PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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



FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT



DIVISION THREE




>

HYDUKE'S VALLEY MOTORS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LOBEL FINANCIAL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants and Respondents.

G042816 (Super. Ct. No. 07CC10613) O P I N I O N

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange
County, Gregory Munoz, Judge.
Affirmed.

Jeffrey B. McMillen for Plaintiff and
Appellant.

Gary Dean Lobel and Ronald J. Green Jr., for
Defendant and Respondent Lobel Financial Corporation.

Eric S. Ludwig for Defendant and Appellant
County Financial Services.



Hyduke's Valley Motors (Hyduke's) appeals
from the postjudgment order denying its motion for attorney fees against Lobel
Financial Corporation (Lobel) and County Finance Services (CFS). Car wholesaler Hyduke's prevailed in its
action to recover from finance companies CFS and Lobel the purchase price of
vehicles it sold to a used car dealer, which the dealer in turn sold to
consumers, with financing provided by CFS and Lobel. Hyduke's contends attorney fees were
authorized by the conditional sales contracts between the used car dealer and
the consumers that were then assigned to the finance companies. We reject its contentions and affirm the
order.

FACTS &
PROCEDURE

The facts are detailed in our opinion in the
concurrently filed companion appeal Hyduke's
Valley Motors v. Lobel Financial Corporation et al. (G042220). We briefly summarize them here as relevant to
the attorney fees issue presented in this appeal.

Hyduke's is a wholesale used car dealer. It sold vehicles to a second car dealer,
Maria Del Rocio Garcia, doing business as U.S. Auto (U.S. Auto) with
the agreement U.S. Auto would pay Hyduke's when certificates of title were
available to be transferred.
U.S. Auto sold the vehicles to consumers under form conditional
sales contracts executed by U.S. Auto and the retail purchaser. U.S. Auto then sold (and assigned) the
conditional sales contracts to the defendant finance companies, CFS and
Lobel. U.S. Auto went bankrupt
before paying Hyduke's for the certificates of title.

Hyduke's filed this action against CFS and
Lobel, among others, seeking to recover the purchase price owed to it by
U.S. Auto for the vehicles to obtain the certificates of title. Its complaint contained causes of action for
declaratory relief, violation of the Unfair Business Practices Act, breach of contract, fraud, money had and
received, and conversion.

In a bench trial, the trial court applied
this court's decision in Quartz of
Southern California, Inc. v. Mullen Bros., Inc. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 901
(Quartz), which on largely identical
facts held as between the wholesale dealer and the finance company, the
wholesale dealer was the legal owner of the title certificates and the finance
company was required to purchase the certificates of title from the wholesale
dealer for transfer to the consumer buyers.
Accordingly, the trial court awarded Hyduke's $75,140 against Lobel and
$48,700 against CFS, and directed Hyduke's to deliver the certificates of title
to the finance companies upon payment of the judgment. Hyduke's was awarded costs as the prevailing
party.

Hyduke's filed a motion seeking attorney fees
of $52,458 against CFS and Lobel. It
relied upon an attorney fees clause contained in the conditional sales
contracts between U.S. Auto and each retail purchaser, which were assigned
by U.S. Auto to the finance companies.[1] Hyduke's asserted it was an intended
beneficiary of the conditional sales contracts and entitled to attorney fees
under Civil Code section 1717's reciprocity provisions.

The trial court denied Hyduke's motion. The court concluded Hyduke's could not rely
on the conditional sales contracts between U.S. Auto and retail purchasers
â€