Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 25STLC01745, Date: 2025-05-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 25STLC01745    Hearing Date: May 29, 2025    Dept: 86

APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF POSSESSION

Date:               5/29/25 (1:30 PM) 

Case:               Mercedes-Benz Vehicle Trust v. Bellverno Auto Collision Center Inc. (25STLC01745) 

TENTATIVE RULING:

The UNOPPOSED Application for Writ of Possession by plaintiff Mercedes-Benz Vehicle Trust is GRANTED IN PART. The Court finds that plaintiff has established the probable validity of its claim to possession of the property, namely, a 2021 Mercedes-Benz GLC300W motor vehicle (VIN: W1N0G8DB2MV312182).

Plaintiff is the successor of the assignee of a written lease with lessees Ralph Pickett Jr. Inc. and Martha Pickett for the lease of the subject vehicle. (McClurg Decl. ¶¶ 2, 12-15 & Exs. 1-3.) Under the lease, upon default of any provision, plaintiff has the right to take the vehicle from the lessees without demand. (McClurg Decl. ¶ 17 & Ex. 1 at ¶ 23(c).) The lessees have defaulted by failing to return the vehicle upon expiration of the lease. (McClurg Decl. ¶ 16.)

In or around May 2024, plaintiff learned that defendant Bellverno Auto Collision Center Inc. (“Bellverno”) had come into possession of the subject vehicle to perform repairs. (McClurg Decl. ¶¶ 18, 24 & Ex. 4.) On or around July 16, 2024, Bellverno claimed a lien on the vehicle in the amount of $5.00 for the DMV filing fee, $50.00 for the lien sale cost, $18,520 for repairs,  and $3,250 for storage (incurred at a the daily rate of $250.00). (McClurg Decl. ¶ 24 & Ex. 4.) According to plaintiffs’ representative, “[a]t no time did BELLVERNO seek prior approval from plaintiff to take possession, and store the Vehicle, nor did Plaintiff give any such approval for the alleged storage fees incurred by BELLVERNO.” (McClurg Decl. ¶ 20.)

Plaintiff establishes a probably valid claim that lessees transferred the vehicle to Bellverno and that plaintiff did not give consent to the vehicle being stored, or repaired by Bellverno. Plaintiff shows a probably valid claim that it never authorized or consented to the subject vehicle being towed, stored, or repaired by Bellverno, and that any statutory lien would be limited to the amounts stated in Civil Code § 3068(c)(1). Plaintiff has offered Bellverno the maximum statutory sum for storage, but Bellverno refuses to return the vehicle. (McClurg Decl. ¶ 23; Domin Decl. ¶¶ 7-8.)

Plaintiff also demonstrates that Bellverno’s statutory lien has been extinguished because Bellverno failed to both provide requested copies of work orders or invoices and allow inspection of the subject vehicle after plaintiff had made demand for such.  (Compare McClurg Decl. ¶¶ 21-22; Domin Decl. ¶¶ 4-4; Ex 6 with Civil Code §§ 3068(b)(3), (b)(4).)  Moreover, Bellverno has not opposed plaintiff’s contention that its lien was extinguished as a matter of law, which is a concession of the validity of plaintiff’s contention. (See Sehulster Tunnels/Pre-Con v. Traylor Brothers, Inc. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1328, 1345, fn. 16 [failure to address point is “equivalent to a concession”].)

The Court finds probable cause to believe the subject vehicle may be found at 2915 E. South Street, in Long Beach, CA 90805, which is the business address for Bellverno.  (McClurg Decl. ¶ 29.)

The Court finds that a turnover order under CCP § 512.070 is warranted here.

No bond is required to be posted because Bellverno lacks a legal interest in the subject vehicle as its lien was extinguished by operation of law pursuant to Civil Code §§ 3068 and 3071.

For redelivery, Bellverno must post an undertaking in the amount of $23,964, which is equal to the current market value of the vehicle (as opposed to the $25,000 requested by plaintiff). (McClurg Decl. ¶ 30 & Ex. 5.)

In accordance herewith, the Court shall execute the Proposed Order, electronically received 3/27/25.