Yu v. Delano Retail Center West CA2/3

── Yu v. Delano Retail Center West CA2/3 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 17, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/17/26 Yu v. Delano Retail Center West CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE MICHAEL S. YU et al., B336858 Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC562415) v. DELANO RETAIL CENTER WEST, LLC, Defendant and Respondent. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Theresa Traber, Judge. Affirmed. Complex Appellate Litigation Group, Jens B. Koepke, Michael von Loewenfeldt; PB Law Group, Luan K. Phan; Law Offices of Egbase and Associates, and Gerald O. Egbase, for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Garrett & Tully, Ryan C. Squire, Candie Y. Chang, and Scott B. Mahler, for Defendant and Respondent. ‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗  Plaintiffs Michael S. Yu (Yu), My Law Holdings, LLC (My Law), and Michael S. Yu, A Law Corporation (Yu Law) appeal from a judgment entered in favor of defendant Delano Retail Center West, LLC (Delano). We affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I. Facts A. Yu acquires the subject property and defaults In 2007, Yu Law purchased certain real property located in El Monte, California (the property). Yu Law funded part of the purchase by borrowing $1,196,500 from nonparty Bank of the West (BOW). The loan was secured by a deed of trust. Among other things, the deed of trust required Yu Law to pay all taxes levied against the property. Yu Law later transferred the property to My Law, which also assumed the BOW loan as a co- borrower. Yu Law also obtained a $984,000 loan from the Small Business Administration (SBA). Plaintiffs fell behind on payments to BOW. In May 2010, BOW recorded a Notice of Default (the 2010 NOD) which asserted that Yu Law owed $96,332.65. The 2010 NOD stated that Yu Law could return its account to good standing by paying all past due payments, costs, and expenses. Consistent with Civil Code section 2924c, subdivision (b)(1), the 2010 NOD also stated that if Yu Law failed to pay property taxes while in default, BOW could require Yu Law to do so before reinstating its account to good standing.1 In August 2010, plaintiffs and BOW entered a forbearance agreement. The parties entered a second forbearance agreement 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Civil Code. 2 in May 2011. Through both agreements, BOW agreed to delay enforcing its rights against plaintiffs for a set time period in exchange for plaintiffs’ commitment to make certain catch-up payments on top of the monthly payments on the loan. Both agreements also required plaintiffs to take specific steps to pay past due property taxes. The trial court later found that plaintiffs made the principal and interest payments required under the 2010 forbearance agreement within the forbearance period, but it also found that plaintiffs failed to comply with the tax obligations. In May 2012, BOW sold the loan and the deed of trust to Commercial Loan Solutions, LLC (CLS). My Law and CLS discussed a potential payment plan.2 In August 2012, CLS offered My Law terms for a new forbearance agreement, but My Law did not accept the proposal. On October 26, 2012, My Law told CLS that it would “reinstate the payments as soon as we have the cash flow” and requested “one more month to do the payments.” CLS asked My Law what am