Judge: Andrew E. Cooper, Case: 21CHCV00490, Date: 2024-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F51, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2251.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 21CHCV00490    Hearing Date: October 3, 2024    Dept: F51

Dept. F-51 

Date: 10/3/24

Case #21CHCV00490

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F-51

MOTION FOR ORDER TO ALLOW COURT CLERK TO SIGN QUIT CLAIM DEEDS

¿ 

Motion Filed: 7/2/24

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Teresa J. Apolinar (“Plaintiff”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Jorge Apolinar (“Defendant”)

NOTICE: OK

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order to allow the Court clerk to sign quit claim deeds pursuant to judgment.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is granted. Plaintiff is entitled to executed quit claim deeds transferring to her title of the subject properties, pursuant to the Court’s 9/26/23 judgment. Plaintiff is to file with the Court a proposed order reflecting the Court’s ruling.

BACKGROUND

This action arises out of Plaintiff’s claims that her son, Defendant, defrauded her into transferring the title to certain real property to him.¿¿

On 6/30/21, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant for: (1) Quiet Title; (2) Financial Elder Abuse;¿(3) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (4) Constructive Fraud; (5) Intentional Misrepresentation;¿(6) Negligent Misrepresentation; (7) Conversion; (8) Cancellation of Instruments;¿(9) Constructive Trust and (10) Accounting. On 3/1/22, Plaintiff filed her operative first amended complaint (“FAC”) against Defendant, alleging the same causes of action, with the additional cause of action for Resulting Trust.

On 5/16/23, jury trial of the matter commenced. On 5/23/23, the jury returned its verdict. On 8/29/23, the Court ordered Defendant to transfer title of four properties back to Plaintiff within 30 days. On 9/26/23, the Court entered its judgment.

On 11/2/23, Defendant filed a notice of appeal of both the jury trial and court trial judgments.

On 7/2/24, Plaintiff filed the instant motion. On 9/20/24, Defendant filed his opposition. On 9/23/24, Plaintiff filed her reply.

ANALYSIS

Every court has the power to “compel obedience to its judgments, orders, and process, and to the orders of a judge out of court, in an action or proceeding pending therein.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 128, subd. (a)(4).) “An elisor is a person appointed by the court to perform functions like the execution of a deed or document. … A court typically appoints an elisor to sign documents on behalf of a recalcitrant party in order to effectuate its judgments or orders, where the party refuses to execute such documents.” (Blueberry Properties, LLC v. Chow (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 1017, 1020.)

Here, Plaintiff seeks to have the Court order the Clerk of Court to execute the quit claim deeds transferring title to the following properties from Defendant to Plaintiff, pursuant to the Court’s 9/26/23 judgment, because Defendant has refused to sign the quit claim deeds for the properties:

a. 19343 Newhouse Street, Canyon Country, CA 91351;

b. 19438 Delight Street, Canyon Country, CA 91351;

c. Kern County Property, an unimproved lot APN: 345-282-18-00-3; and

d. Lancaster Property, an unimproved lot APN: 3361-013-009.

Defendant argues that the Court should deny the motion pending the resolution of two pending actions, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 23CHCV02374 and Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 23STPB11831. These two actions respectively relate to the partition of real property on which Defendant’s personal residence is located, and the appointment of a conservator over Plaintiff. (Def.’s Opp. 1:25–2:12.) Defendant further argues that the enforcement of the judgment should be stayed because he has filed an appeal thereof. (Id. at 2:13–16.)

Plaintiff argues in reply that the two pending actions have not been deemed related to the instant action, and therefore “should not prevent execution of this Court’s Judgment of September 23, 2023.” (Pl.’s Reply 2:8–9.) Plaintiff further argues that the filing of an appeal does not stay the enforcement of a judgment for money or real property, because here, no undertaking was given. (Id. at 3:4–7, citing Code Civ. Proc. §§ 917.1, 917.4.) The Court agrees.

Even if the required undertaking was given, “a trial court shall not have power, without the consent of the adverse party, to stay the enforcement thereof pursuant to this section for a period which extends for more than 10 days beyond the last date on which a notice of appeal could be filed.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 918, subd. (b).) Normally, a notice of appeal must be filed on the earlier date of either 60 days after service of a Notice of Entry of Judgment or 180 days after entry of judgment. (Cal. Rules of Ct., r. 8.104(a).)

Here, Plaintiff served Defendant with a Notice of Entry of Judgment on 10/12/23. Therefore, the last date on which Defendant could file a Notice of Appeal was 12/11/23. Accordingly, the last date until which the Court could stay the enforcement of the judgment, even if an undertaking was given, was 12/21/23. Moreover, by virtue of the instant motion, Plaintiff does not consent to any stay of the enforcement of the judgment. Thus, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 918, this court lacks the authority, without Plaintiff’s consent or any undertaking by Defendant, to stay execution past 12/21/23. And as it is now October 2024, the court has no authority to stay the execution of the judgment.

CONCLUSION

The motion is granted. Plaintiff is entitled to executed quit claim deeds transferring to her title of the subject properties. Plaintiff is to file with the Court a proposed order reflecting the Court’s ruling.