Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 21STCV28570, Date: 2022-09-08 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV28570 Hearing Date: September 8, 2022 Dept: 52
Tentative Ruling:
Plaintiffs/Judgment
Creditors Thomas Nash and Bo Kyung O’Connor’s Motion for a Post-Judgment
Assignment Order and Accounting
Judgment
creditors Thomas Nash and Bo Kyung O’Connor move for an order assigning
judgment debtor Ninon Aprea’s rights to future payments from Airbnb.com,
VRBO.com, and Booking.com for renting her property to tenants or guests.
CCP
§ 708.510(a) provides that “the court may order the judgment debtor to assign
to the judgment creditor… all or part of a right to payment due or to become
due, whether or not the right is conditioned on future developments.” Assignable payments include but are not
limited to six enumerated types, including “[r]ents.” (CCP § 708.510(a)(2).)
Judgment
creditors have an unsatisfied judgment against judgment debtor Ninon
Aprea. Aprea owns residential property
at 727 N. Martel Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90046, which was the subject property in
this landlord/tenant action. (Linzer
Decl., ¶ 10.) She lists two units at the
property for rent on Airbnb.com. (Linzer
Decl., ¶ 10, Exs. C-D.) Aprea received
payments from Airbnb.com regularly from November 2011 to June 2022. (Linzer Decl., ¶ 11, Ex. E.) At Aprea’s judgment debtor examination on
July 25, 2022, she testified that in the past she has also received income from
other short-term rental websites such as Booking.com and VRBO.com. (Linzer Decl., ¶ 12.)
Aprea
argues the payments are not subject to assignment because income from
short-term rentals is not “rent” under CCP § 708.510(a)(2). Assuming that is correct, it is irrelevant. The enumerated types of payments are only
examples. (CCP § 708.510(a) [the court
may assign payments, “including but not limited to the following types of
payments…”].)
Aprea
also argues she needs these payments to pay her bills. “[I]n determining whether to order an
assignment … the court may take into consideration all relevant factors,
including … [t]he reasonable requirements of a judgment debtor who is a natural
person.” (CCP § 708.510(c)(1).)
The
court finds that Aprea’s reasonable requirements do not justify denying or limiting
the assignment order. Her opposition
argues she “only enjoys one source of income, being net profits from managing
this property.” (Opp., p. 3.) Aprea does not, however, state so in her sworn
declaration. She only says she has not
“worked or received a call from [sic] my acting services for over one year to
date” (Aprea Decl., ¶ 1) and that “I do receive minimal income from the house
of 727 N. Martel Ave.” (Id., ¶
2.) She thus only says she earns no
income from acting—not from all types of job or other source of income. She falls short of saying under penalty of
perjury that she earns no income from any source other than the property.
The court also finds Aprea is not credible. Her declaration states “at the most I cleared
$500.00 over a breakeven” from the property, but her own figures show her net
monthly income from the property is $1,312.23.
(Aprea Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. A.)
Moreover, Aprea’s figures are based on a “room rate”
of $350 per day. (Aprea Decl., Ex. A.) But plaintiff’s evidence shows she lists two rentals
on Airbnb: the 2-bedroom, 2-bath main house for $504 per night (Linzer Decl.,
Ex. C) and the 1-bed, 1-bath guest house for $246 per night (Linzer Decl., Ex. D).
Assuming Aprea accurately accounted for her expenses
and using the 85% occupancy rate she estimates, the monthly gross income from
the property would therefore be $19,375 monthly—more than double the $9,041.67
she claims. Airbnb must take some portion
and therefore does not pay Aprea that full amount. But for Aprea’s $350 “room rate” to be
correct, Airbnb would have to take $400 of the $750 combined rate for the two
listings, or 53%. That is not plausible.
Judgment
creditors show good cause for an order assigning Aprea’s right to payments from
obligors Airbnb.com, VRBO.com, and Booking.com.
There is a substantial probability she will receive payments from the
obligors in the future.
Accounting
In
addition to an assignment, judgment creditors seek an order that Aprea must
“file with this Court and serve on Judgment Creditors’ counsel, an accounting
of any monies received from any Obligor every 30 days.” (Prop. Order, ¶ 6.) Judgment creditors argue the court may make
such an order because it is “necessary to carry” the assignment “into effect”
under CCP § 187. But as the moving
papers acknowledge, there is no statutory provision for such an
accounting. The enforcement of judgments
law is a comprehensive statutory scheme.
The court declines to issue an order for a monthly accounting not
provided for under that scheme.
Disposition
The
motion is granted in part. The court will sign the proposed order with
one alteration: striking paragraph 6, “That Judgment Debtor Ninon Aprea is
ordered to file with this Court and serve on Judgment Creditors’ counsel, an
accounting of any monies received from any Obligor every 30 days, beginning
with October 1, 2022, or the first day of the second month following issuance
of this Order.”