Boosalis v. Road 49 CA3

── Boosalis v. Road 49 CA3 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 17, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/17/26 Boosalis v. Road 49 CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Yolo) GUS BOOSALIS, C098825 Cross-complainant and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. CV-2018-0243) v. ROAD 49, INC. et al., Cross-defendants and Respondents. Gus Boosalis appeals the denial of his cross-claim for judicial foreclosure on certain real property in Yolo County and the trial court’s subsequent award of attorneys’ fees to one of the cross-defendants, Justin Byrd. The trial court denied judicial foreclosure following a bifurcated bench trial during which Byrd was voluntarily dismissed. Based on the court’s factual findings, which are undisputed in this appeal on the judgment roll, there is no basis to disturb its conclusion that foreclosure was not warranted. We agree with Boosalis, however, that the award of attorneys’ fees to Byrd was precluded by his voluntary dismissal. BACKGROUND This appeal involves the resolution of a single cause of action alleged in a cross- complaint that Boosalis filed within the context of consolidated actions relating to a cannabis-growing business operating on property in Guinda, California. 1  In April 2022, Boosalis filed a cross-complaint asserting five causes of action against five cross-defendants: Byrd and his spouse (Fallon Byrd, who seems not to have appeared in the action), both of whom were tenants renting and living on the property; Randen Patterson and Glenn Sharer, the former owners of the property; and Road 49 Inc., a California corporation that purchased the property in 2020. The second cause of action, against all five cross-defendants, sought a decree of judicial foreclosure on the subject property based on the claimed default of certain obligations allegedly secured by a 2018 deed of trust granted to Boosalis. This foreclosure claim was bifurcated and heard at a five-day bench trial in March 2023. After the submission of closing briefs, the trial court issued a tentative decision denying judicial foreclosure. No reporter’s transcript was filed as part of this appeal, but the trial court’s tentative decision includes a narrative of the facts adduced at trial, from which we draw the following factual background, supplemented by documents included in the record on appeal. The Byrds originally rented the property from the owners, Patterson and Sharer, under a lease agreement that included a right to purchase. During that lease, and with the necessary permits, Justin Byrd began a small cannabis-growing operation on the property. At some point, Boosalis (the uncle of one of Byrd’s friends) and a few others agreed to invest in the cannabis operation. The trial court found that “[a]ll the money from the investors went into a bank account held by GACD Lenders of Tiburon, LLC (GACD), an entity created by Boosalis and wholly owned and run by him.” “No investor, Boosalis included, ever sent money directly to Justin Byrd or to any business entity related to the cannabis operation.” Instead, “[t]he investors put their money into GACD, which in turn invested in the cannabis operation.” There was no return-on- investment plan. Boosalis also created and ran a management company, First Centaur