Renteria

INTRODUCTION

Appellants Raymond Renteria (Raymond) and Rita Renteria (Rita) contend the trial court erred in granting respondent Antonette Gutierrez’s motion for judgment following presentation of their case to the court, sitting as trier of fact. More particularly, appellants maintain respondent’s motion was procedurally defective. They also challenge the trial court’s findings that appellants failed to present substantial evidence to establish ownership of certain real property and that the statute of frauds barred their claims. Further, appellants assert the trial court erred by ruling that testimony offered in support of their case was hearsay not subject to an exception. We conclude respondent’s motion, while titled a motion for nonsuit below, may be treated on appeal as a motion for judgment. Further, we conclude the trial court’s findings are supported by substantial evidence. Lastly, we determine appellants have waived any argument concerning objections based upon hearsay.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In 1988, Raymond became delinquent on a debt owed to Finance and Thrift Company (F&T). That loan was secured by his property located at 1264 North Pecan in Reedley (Pecan Property).…