Pham v. Hashemi-Nasab
Filed 8/23/06 Pham v. Hashemi-Nasab CA4/3
Opinion following order vacation prior opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| TIM PHAM et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. MOSTAFA HASHEMI-NASAB, Defendant and Appellant. | G035588 (Super. Ct. No. 04CC05657) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Steven L. Perk, Judge. Affirmed.
Outwater & Pinckes, David E. Outwater and Randi E. Pinckes for Plaintiffs and Respondents.
Mostafa Hashemi-Nasab, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.
* * *
According to the trial court, which is the only source we have for a factual background, this litigation involves a seller's remorse at agreeing to sell his residence at a price appearing, in hindsight, to be too low. The appeal filed by Mostafa Hashemi-Nasab (Nasab), who has chosen to represent himself, suffers from procedural and substantive defects too numerous to recount. As best we can glean from the opening brief, Nasab seeks reversal of a judgment awarding Tim and Lucy Pham (collectively, Pham) specific performance of a real estate sales agreement requiring Nasab to proceed with the sale of his residence.
Nasab makes two assertions: (1) The bench trial was unfair because Nasab's counsel did not appear, but sent a last-minute substitute attorney who was ill-informed about the issues and had little, if anything, to offer on Nasab's behalf; and (2) the subject real estate sales agreement required Pham to personally deliver to Nasab a signed acceptance of the counteroffer, but Pham mailed the acceptance, thus Nasab was free to revoke the agreement.
The record before us is woefully inadequate. We have no copy of the agreement or other documentary evidence relevant to the issue and no reporter's transcript of the testimony at trial. What we have is a clerk's transcript containing Nasab's trial brief and the judgment, and the reporter's transcript of (1) the court's March 8, 2005 oral summary of the evidence and analysis of the legal issues, and (2) its March 9, 2005 oral announcement of judgment in favor of Pham, together with a reference to the authorities upon which the court relied in determining Nasab had waived any defect in Pham's method of acceptance and thus was not entitled to avoid the equitable remedy of specific performance.
DISCUSSION
It is the appellant's burden to present an adequate record to support a claim of reversible error. (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574.) For lack of such a record, we indulge all presumptions in favor of the court's determination of facts. (See, e.g., Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 881 [â€
