Corcoran

Corcoran v. Arouh

Good Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 345·24 Cal. App. 4th 310·29 Cal. Rptr. 2d 326·94 Daily Journal DAR 5345·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2787
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 21, 1994B067754California2,345 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hastings, J.

Appellant, Cyrus Mayers (Mayers), appeals from a denial of a motion to vacate judgment and quash writ. Appellants, Cyrus Mayers and Albert Arouh (Arouh), both appeal from an award of sanctions granted after the trial court denied the motion to vacate. We find that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over Mayers and that counsel’s appearance on his behalf in the suit was unauthorized. We also find that sanctions were improperly ordered against both appellants. We therefore reverse the ruling of the trial court with regard to appellants.

Facts

On March 25, 1990, Attorney Alfred M. Cedro (Cedro), on behalf of Richard B. Corcoran (respondent), filed a lawsuit for fraud, breach of contract and common counts against defendants Dick Capen (Capen), Albert Arouh, individually and doing business as A.C. Home Loans, and doing business as Gold Coast Home Loan, Inc.; Cypress Mayers; and Does 1 to 50. The suit sought damages for a loan allegedly made to defendants for investment in a second trust deed.

On June 28, 1991, a “Stipulation for Entry of Judgment—Judgment Payable in Installments” was filed with the court. This document was signed by Cedro on behalf of respondent, by…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.