From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mayer v. L & B Real Estate

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fifth Division
Sep 25, 2008
No. B180540 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 25, 2008)

Opinion


FRANK MAYER et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. L & B REAL ESTATE, Defendant and Appellant. B180540 California Court of Appeal, Second District, Fifth Division September 25, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Barbara A. Meiers, Judge. Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC283231

Ezer & Williamson and Mitchel J. Ezer for Defendant and Appellant.

Buchalter Nemer, Harry W.R. Chamberlain II; and Steven W. Weinshenk for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

KRIEGLER, J.

We review this matter on remand from the Supreme Court, which reversed our decision in favor of defendant and appellant L&B Real Estate for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed in the high court’s opinion. (Frank Mayer v. L&B Real Estate (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1231, 1240.) Plaintiffs and respondents Frank Mayer and Josie Mayer had sued for quiet title after learning that a portion of their commercial property had been sold to L&B Real Estate at a County of Los Angeles tax sale. In its judgment of November 19, 2004, the trial court granted title in favor of the Mayers, finding the tax collector gave constitutionally defective notice of the tax delinquency and the tax sale, and that it and L&B Real Estate were estopped from relying on the one-year statute of limitations that would have otherwise barred the Mayers’ action. We reversed on the ground that the quiet title action was barred by the limitations period. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed and ruled the Mayers’ action was timely filed. (Ibid.)

The sole issue before us is the awarding of costs on this appeal, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.278. We ordered the parties—the Mayers and L&B Real Estate—to file supplemental briefs on that issue. As the prevailing parties, the Mayers are entitled to their appellate costs. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278a.) Because the County was not a party to the appeal, no appellate costs are awarded against that entity.

DISPOSITION

The judgment of November 19, 2004, is affirmed pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in Frank Mayer v. L&B Real Estate, supra, 43 Cal.4th 1231. The Mayers are to recover their costs on appeal from L&B Real Estate.

We concur: ARMSTRONG, Acting P. J. MOSK, J.


Summaries of

Mayer v. L & B Real Estate

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fifth Division
Sep 25, 2008
No. B180540 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 25, 2008)
Case details for

Mayer v. L & B Real Estate

Case Details

Full title:FRANK MAYER et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. L & B REAL ESTATE…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fifth Division

Date published: Sep 25, 2008

Citations

No. B180540 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 25, 2008)