1DCA Division 5 Oral Argument - 2026/2/19 - Feb 19, 2026

argument

1DCA Division 5 Oral Argument - 2026/2/19

California First District Court of Appeal 2h 14m 8 chapters transcribed 1 month ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What procedural matters are addressed at the beginning of the oral argument?

Terriel Jackson 0:13

Please be seated. Good morning, everyone.

Anthony Lewis 0:59

Ready ready?

Terriel Jackson 1:01

All right, calling the matter at line one, James Bobo versus Ramin um And forgive me for mispronouncing na Naganay? Sorry about that. All right. May I please uh I'm Justice Terriel Jackson. I'm on this matter along with Justice Mark Simons and Justice Gordon Burns. May I please have the party state their appearances and if you could go to the podium because this is being live streamed, we want to be able to capture your voices. Starting with the appellant. Good morning, Your Honor is Bill Gilg for the uh panel. Thank you, and I'm sorry for mispronouncing your client's name.

Frank Fox 1:43

Okay.

Terriel Jackson 1:44

And may I please have the appearance of the respondent.

Frank Fox 1:47

Good morning, Your Honors. Frank Fox for respondent.

Terriel Jackson 1:50

Very good. I believe you all received the court's attentive where we set forth um our direction that the court is going in as well as the time. Both sides have received it. The tentative?

Unknown 2:03

Yeah.

Terriel Jackson 2:04

Okay. For the appellant, how much time, if there is rebuttal, would you like to reserve?

Unknown 2:10

Uh I would like uh ten minutes of argument and five in rebuttal journal. Okay, very good.

Terriel Jackson 2:17

This the court has consolidated these appeal and the appellant is appealing from the trial court's judgment and in favor of the plaintiff in this case. And I'm just really condensing that. So with that being said, appellant, would you care to argue?

Unknown 2:36

Thank you, Your Honor. Uh I would like to address the uh the single finding of elder abuse, uh the senior mortgage issue, but uh the court indicated there was a forfeiture issue as well, so I I just want to make sure I can argue uh the case on the merits or w should I address the forfeiture issue first?

Terriel Jackson 2:53

You can address whatever you wish to because we sent you your tentative in.

Unknown 2:58

Okay. Okay.

Terriel Jackson 3:00

Okay, well and we have read and considered all the papers and we do appreciate

Unknown 3:04

it. Okay. Well the the uh the senior mortgage issue was not raised in the in the opening brief and uh uh the the the court senator indicated that was forfeited and it cited the case of Proctor uh versus Viget Intertechnology Incorporated, which in turn cited the case of Reichart versus Hoffman, which held for the same holding. But the Raghart case said two California Supreme Court cases. And the first is Hibernian Savings and Loan Society versus Fornham 1908-153 Cal 578-584. And that court that that uh case held that uh no forfeiture should be imposed if it'd be if the penalty be unjustly affected. And obviously, my my my client would be unjustly affected by the court not considering the argument. The second uh California Supreme Court case.

Unknown 3:53

Was Conn vs. Wilson, 1898-120 Kel, 643, 644 point page, which held that merit inadvertence would be a good reason to not impose a forfeiture. And I I I prepared all the briefings in this case, and I I just inadvertently I was focusing on the foreclosure issue and the not the rent issue, uh those are the two issues where the court

Terriel Jackson 4:20

But you did see the courts tentative and we did deal address with the forec foreclosure. Do you disagree with it?

Unknown 4:27

Oh no, no, no but no no No, no, no, I'm not obviously not. No. But I was focusing on that and preparing my opening brief, and I inadvertently did not include the senior mortgage issue. So I would ask the court to to consider the senior mortgage issue on the merits. And I'll get to that now on the merits right now, Your Honor. But the the trial court found, and also this this this court found in its tentative that the uh appellate purchase of 79th Avenue property sub To the senior loan in in Brown's name and never paid off the senior loan and never put the loan in his name. Well, uh the purchase agreement was at Exhibit Y 11 and and that was that was the uh defendant Abiyashi's terms. He he he he would not sell the property except if if you're gonna

Unknown 5:13

uh purchase the property subject to a senior loan. And so and the the court found and this court found that that that left uh Brown on the hook. in case uh Uganda didn't uh make this the payments that it would impact uh Brown's credit rating. Well it's just a