Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: BC704715, Date: 2023-09-19 Tentative Ruling

Judgment Creditor Eric Mintz’s petition to determine the validity of the third-party claim of Third-Party Claimant Euro Spec Motoring is granted. The Court directs payment by Law Office to Euro Spec Motoring to be made directly to Judgment Creditor of all funds held under levy.

Plaintiff Eric Mintz (“Mintz”) (“Judgment Creditor”) petitions for a hearing to determine the validity of the third-party claim of Third-Party Claimant Euro Spec Motoring (“Euro Spec”) and for proper disposition of the property that is the subject of the Third-Party Claim. (Notice of Motion, pgs. 1-2; C.C.P. §720.270.) Judgment Creditor seeks an order directing payment to be made directly to Judgment Creditor of all funds held under levy. (Notice of Motion, pg. 2.)

Judgment was entered in favor of Judgment Creditor and against Defendants Law Offices of David R. Denis, P.C. (“Law Office”) and David R. Denis (“Denis”) (collectively, “Judgment Debtors”) on January 8, 2021. (Judgment.) A writ of execution in favor of Judgment Creditor and against Judgment Debtors was issued on March 27, 2023. (Writ of Execution.) Judgment Creditor’s counsel declares that on or about July 3, 2023, Judgment Creditor’s counsel instructed the Los Angeles County Sheriff to levy the bank account of Law Office located at Bank of America for the only account identified by Denis in his responses to post-judgment discovery. (Decl. of Shapiro ¶5.) On or about July 24, 2023, Euro Spec filed a claim of ownership with the Los Angeles County Sheriff. (Decl. of Shapiro ¶6, Exh. 3.) On July 31, 2023, Judgment Creditor filed a Notice of Opposition of Claim of Exemption with the Los Angeles County Sheriff. (Decl. of Shapiro ¶7, Exh. 4.)

Judgment Creditor filed the instant petition on July 31, 2023. As of the date of this hearing no opposition has been filed.

This Court continued the hearing on the instant motion on November 29, 2023, and again on December 15, 2023, to ensure all parties appear in person for the hearing on the matter.

(a) In a case where the third person has not filed with the levying officer an undertaking to release the property pursuant to Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 720.610), if the creditor does not within the time allowed under subdivision (b) of Section 720.240 file with the levying officer an undertaking (or file a notice if the creditor is a public entity) that satisfies the requirements of Section 720.260 and a statement under Section 720.280, or deposit with the levying officer the amount claimed under Section 720.230, the levying officer shall release the personal property unless it is to be held under another lien or unless otherwise ordered by the court.

(b) Except as otherwise provided in this section, release is governed by Section 699.060.

(c) If property that has been taken into custody is to be released to the debtor pursuant to Section 699.060 and the debtor has not claimed the property within 10 days after notice was served pursuant to Section 699.060, the levying officer shall release the property to the secured party or lienholder making the claim.

(d) A hearing may be had on the third-party claim pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 720.310) notwithstanding the release of the property pursuant to this section.

(a) Subject to the power of the court to permit an amendment in the interest of justice:

(2) In the case of a third-party claim by a secured party, the creditor’s statement constitutes the pleading of the creditor.

(b) A third-party claim of ownership, right to possession, or a lien, shall be deemed controverted by the creditor.

At a hearing on a third-party claim, the third person has the burden of proof. (C.C.P. §720.360.) If the petition for a hearing was made by the creditor, neither the petition nor the proceedings pursuant thereto may be dismissed without the consent of the third person. (C.C.P. §720.370.)

As a preliminary matter, Judgment Creditor’s petition is timely, as a petition for hearing on the claim must be filed within 15 days after the third-party claim was filed with the levying officer. (C.C.P. §720.310(a); Decl. of Shapiro ¶6, Exh. 3.) Further, Judgment Creditor served notice of the time, place, and purpose of the hearing on the opposing party and the judgment debtor and filed a copy of the notice of hearing with the levying officer at least 16 court days before this hearing. (C.C.P. §§720.320, 1005(b); Notice of Motion, pgs. 1-2.)

No additional pleadings are required for the hearing: the third-party claim constitutes the third party’s pleading. The creditor’s statement regarding the third-party claim of a secured party constitutes the judgment creditor’s opposition pleading to such a claim. The creditor need not file any pleading to oppose a third-party claim of title or right to possession—such claim is deemed controverted by the creditor. (C.C.P. §720.350.) The court need not make any findings. (C.C.P. §720.400.) The third-party claimant has the burden of proof. (C.C.P. §720.360; Oxford Street Properties, LLC v. Rehabilitation Assocs., LLC (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 296, 307; Whitehouse v. Six Corp. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 527, 533; ITT Comm’l Finance Corp. v. Tech Power, Inc. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1551, 1557.)

Euro Spec failed to meet its burden to prevail on its third-party claim. Euro Spec has not shown that there were insufficient funds from which to cash the check and as such, Euro Spec’s full and complete pleadings have already been received and its claim of ownership must be denied. (See Decl. of Shapiro ¶6, Exh. 3.)

Judgment Creditor’s petition to determine the validity of the third-party claim of Euro Spec Motoring is granted. The Court rejects the claim of Euro Spec Motoring, and orders that the funds at issue are subject to levy.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court