Tong v. Rucker









Filed 11/16/10 Tong v. Rucker 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

TU MY TONG, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. FRED RUCKER, Defendant and Respondent.

B217961 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC385464)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Gregory Alarcon, Judge. Affirmed.

Mazur & Mazur, Janice R. Mazur and William E. Mazur, Jr., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.


_________________________

Tu My Tong sued Attorney Fred Rucker for legal malpractice. The trial court entered judgment on a jury's special verdict in favor of Rucker. Tong appeals. We affirm the judgment.
FACTS
In August 2000, Duc Doan borrowed $300,000 (all money figures are rounded) from U.S. Credit Bancorp, Inc. (USCB),[1] secured by a deed of trust recorded against an apartment building on Figueroa Street. Between February and April 2003, Doan signed a series of deeds ostensibly conveying all of his interest in the apartment building to Tong. In August 2003, Doan filed for bankruptcy. Following a legal history which need not be recounted for purposes of the current appeal, the bankruptcy court ruled that Tong owned the apartment building. Meanwhile, Tong sought to refinance the debt on the apartment building, and, in January 2005, she requested a â€