Fink

Fink v. Shemtov

Good Law
148 Cal. Rptr. 3d 570·2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 1109·210 Cal. App. 4th 599
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 28, 2012No. G045856California5,256 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Fybel, J.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff David Fink appeals after judgment was entered in favor of, inter alia, defendant S&E Stone, Inc. (S&E). Acting in propria persona, Fink filed a complaint against S&E and others, as the assignee of Stone Center Corporation’s (Stone Center) claims against them and litigated those claims through a bench trial. In a thorough statement of decision issued after the trial court granted S&E’s motion for judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 631.8, the court found Stone Center and Fink’s assignment agreement to be void against public policy. The court explained the agreement did not constitute a' valid assignment of claims, but a joint venture whereby Stone Center provided the causes of action and Fink provided legal representation of their venture. The trial court found the assignment agreement violated Business and Professions Code section 6125, which prohibits the unauthorized practice of law.

Applying California assignment law, we disagree with the trial court’s analysis of the legal effect of the assignment agreement and reverse the *603 judgment as to S&E only. Stone Center absolutely and completely transferred all of its rights to its…

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.