Sohal

BACKGROUND

Before we recount the background, we must comment on the Sohals’ briefing. Much of their opening brief contains statements of fact or procedure without a reference to the record on appeal. Because of this, the Sohals’ briefing is “in dramatic noncompliance with appellate procedures.” (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246.) We will not consider any statement of fact or procedure not supported by a reference to the record on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(2)(C); Schmidlin v. City of Palo Alto (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 728, 738.) We therefore disregard those statements in the Sohals’ briefing not properly supported and consider only statements that have an accompanying citation to the record on appeal.

2 In April 2006, the Crosslands sold real property and their business (collectively, the Country Store) in Tehama County to the Sohals for $1.2 million.1 The Sohals paid about half the purchase price in cash, and the Crosslands provided a loan for the remainder of the purchase price, secured by a deed of trust on the property. In 2009, the Sohals stopped paying on the loan. Also in 2009, the Sohals sued the Crosslands, alleging various breach of…