This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Real Property
Fraudulent Conveyance
Partnership

Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland v. Tomer Rotholz, Tsila Paz, et al.

Published: Mar. 2, 2004 | Result Date: Jan. 27, 2004 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: BC280871 Bench Decision –  $0

Judge

Ralph W. Dau

Court

L.A. Superior Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

David L. Lynch

David C. Veis


Defendant

Francis "Skip" Cunningham III

Michael J. Simkin
(Simkin & Associates Inc.)


Facts

The plaintiff provided a public works work completion bond to the defendant Tomer Rotholz. Rotholz defaulted on the bond and a judgment for approximately $1.5 million was subsequently obtained by default agreement. Rotholz also did not appear in this action. The defendants Ofer Dayan and Tomer Rotholz had a partnership whereby they would purchase lots, or houses to renovate or build, sell and divide the proceeds. This partnership had nothing to do with the underlying bond action. At some point, Dayan wanted to terminate their relationship. This included dividing five vacant lots in which they held title as tenants in common as to a 50 percent share. Before judgment was entered on the $1.5 million bond action, Rotholz arranged through escrow to sell or transfer the lots to third parties. This also involved an exchange of lots and Dayan taking a trust deed on one of the lots sold to a BFP. Two of these third parties were bonafide purchasers, one of the third parties was a relative by marriage. The transfers to the bonafide purchasers were found not to be fraudulent conveyances by the court.

Settlement Discussions

The defendant Dayan rejected the plaintiff's last offer to settle for $91,000 by way of a stipulated judgment made at trial. The plaintiff refused to accept $20,000 in August 2003. The plaintiff refused a settlement to sell vacant lots in question back to the defendant for $170,000. The plaintiff refused $10,000 offered by Dayan on the day of the trial.

Result

Judgment for the defendant Dayan after trial, and for Tsila Paz after summary judgment.

Other Information

The trial only proceeded against defendant Dayan. Dayan did not call any witnesses on his behalf.


#125764

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390