Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 23STCP00104, Date: 2024-08-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCP00104    Hearing Date: August 22, 2024    Dept: 86

APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF POSSESSION

Date:               8/22/24 (1:30 PM) 

Case:                           Ajah Alvarez v. Silverlake Auto Body and Paint (23STCP00104) 

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioner Ajah Alvarez’s UNOPPOSED Application for Writ of Possession is GRANTED.

Petitioner seeks an order releasing a vehicle, namely, a 2021 Subaru Crosstrek (VIN JF2GTAACXM9357581), from a claim of mechanics lien by respondent Silverlake Auto Body and Paint (“Silverlake”). (Pet. ¶¶ 6-8.)  

A person who repairs and stores a vehicle has a lien for compensation on the vehicle. (Civ. Code § 3068(a).) The lien arises when a written statement of charges for completed work is given to the registered owner or 15 days after the work is completed, whichever occurs first. (Civ. Code § 3068(a).) The lien is extinguished unless the lien holder applies for authorization from the Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”) or files a court action within 30 days after the lien has arisen. (Civ. Code § 3068(b)(1).) For any vehicle worth over $4,000, the lienholder is required to apply to the DMV for authorization to conduct a lien sale. (Civ. Code § 3071(a).) For any vehicle worth $4,000 or less, the lienholder is required to apply to the DMV for the names and addresses of the registered and legal owners of record and send a notice of a pending lien sale. (Civ. Code § 3072(a), (b).) Any lien sale that does not comply with these requirements is void. (Civ. Code §§ 3071(l), 3072(j).)

In November 2022, petitioner dropped off her vehicle at Silverlake for repairs. (Alvarez Decl. ¶ 3.) Silverlake purportedly assured petitioner that the repairs were to be covered by insurance. (Alvarez Decl. ¶ 3.) Petitioner purportedly had the manager write on the invoice that no balance was owed. (Alvarez Decl. ¶ 3.)

On December 27, 2022, Silverlake’s manager told petitioner that the repairs were completed but insurance would not cover the entire cost. (Alvarez Decl. ¶ 4.) After petitioner confirmed the existence of a balance with the insurance company, petitioner called Silverlake to settle the matter. (Alvarez Decl. ¶ 4.) Petitioner was told that only the manager could help her, but the manager was out to lunch. (Alvarez Decl. ¶ 4.) Petitioner called Silverlake again but was told that the manager had left for the day. (Alvarez Decl. ¶ 4.)

When petitioner called back the following morning, the manager told her that two days of storage at $250 per day had been added to the balance, even though 24 hours had not passed before the manager had told her that the repairs were completed. (Alvarez Decl. ¶ 4.) The manager also told petitioner that a $175 lien filing fee had been added to the balance even though no lien had been filed. (Alvarez Decl. ¶ 4.)

Petitioner disputes that she owes any balance. Petitioner presents a carbon copy of the invoice, which does not contain any note from the manager indicating that any balance was covered by insurance. (Alvarez Decl. ¶ 3 & Ex. B.) Petitioner contends that the manager lifted the top page when writing so that the writing would not be transferred to the carbon copy. (Alvarez Decl. ¶ 3.)

Regardless of whether petitioner owes a balance, Silverlake does not have a valid lien. The notice of lien sent to petitioner by the DMV reflects that petitioner was billed on February 22, 2023. (Alvarez Decl. ¶¶ 4, 8 & Ex. D.) Petitioner contends that this date is false and that she was billed on December 28, 2022. (Alvarez Decl. ¶¶ 4, 8.) Even if petitioner were billed on February 22, 2023, Silverlake did not apply for the lien sale until May 12, 2023, more than 30 days after the lien would have arisen. (Alvarez Decl. ¶¶ 4, 8 & Ex. E [DMV Vehicle History Report]; see Civ. Code § 3068(a), (b)(1).) Accordingly, even assuming that petitioner was billed on February 22, 2023, any resulting lien would be extinguished. Silverlake did not file any opposition demonstrating why petitioner is not entitled to possession of the subject vehicle.

For the foregoing reasons, Silverlake has no valid lien to collect on any balance for repairs, storage, or lien filing fees. The Court finds that petitioner Ajah Alvarez has established the probable validity of her claim to possession of the subject 2021 Subaru Crosstrek (VIN JF2GTAACXM9357581).

No undertaking is required. Silverlake has no interest in the subject vehicle. (See CCP § 515.010(a) [“The undertaking shall be in an amount not less than twice the value of the defendant’s interest in the property or in a greater amount”].)

The Court will sign the proposed order, lodged on July 29, 2024, but modifies it to reflect that the sheriff or marshal may enter only Silverlake Auto Body and Paint, located at 2849 Rowena Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90039. Petitioner has not presented any probable cause indicating that Silverlake operates at any other address or that the subject vehicle is located at any other such location. (See CCP § 512.010(b)(4).)