Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 19BBCV00464, Date: 2024-01-26 Tentative Ruling

REQUESTING ORAL ARGUMENT PER CRC 3.1308

The Court will attempt to post all Tentative Rulings at least the day prior to the hearing by 3:00 p.m.; however, the Court does not post Tentative Rulings for all matters.  

The
Court will indicate in the Tentative Ruling whether the Court is requesting oral argument.  For cases where the Court is not requesting argument, then pursuant to
California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) notice of intent to appear is
required.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no
argument will be permitted unless a “party notifies all other parties and the
court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention
to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the
court if no notice of intent to appear is received.”   

Notice
may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818)
260-8412.

Notice of the ruling must be served as indicated in the tentative.  Remote appearances are permitted for all law and motion unless otherwise indicated by the Court.  

Case Number: 19BBCV00464    Hearing Date: January 26, 2024    Dept: A

MOTION FOR ORDER APPOINTING AN APPRAISER

& GRANT ACCESS TO DWELLING

Los Angeles Superior Court Case # 19BBCV00464

 NOTICE: 

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) notice of intent to appear is required.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument will be permitted unless a “party notifies all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no notice of intent to appear is received.”   

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412. 

ANALYSIS:  

Bruce Wasserman (“Judgement Creditor”) brings this motion for an order appointing an appraiser and granting access to a dwelling of a judgment debtor in this matter. Judgment Creditor asks the Court for an order appointing an appraiser so that the property owned by Judgement Debtor Jaqueline Wizgan at 12619 Miranda Street, Valley Village, CA 91607 (the “Property”) may be appraised in anticipation of Judgment Creditor’s application for a sale of the Property. No such application is pending before the Court at this time. 

Judgment Creditor states that the grounds for this motion is Code of Civil Procedure (“C.C.P.”) § 704.708(d). The Court finds this statute does not support Judgment Creditor’s motion. 

C.C.P. § 704.708 outlines the procedure for conducting a hearing for the sale of a dwelling of a judgment debtor. C.C.P. § 704.708(d) specifically allows the Court to appoint an appraiser to “assist the court” in determining the fair market value of a home. The statute is located in a section of the Code which governs the procedure at a hearing for the sale of a judgment debtor’s dwelling.  It is clear that this statute is not intended to authorize the Court to appoint an appraiser to assist a Judgment Creditor in having the property appraised before an application is even submitted. Rather, the section is intended to allow the Court an alternative means of assessing the value of property in contrast to those presented by a Judgment Creditor upon application for sale. Judgment Creditor is free to retain his own appraiser to determine the fair market value of the subject property. 

Further, the statute makes no mention of granting the appraiser access to the property. There is no statutory authority for such an order, a fact supported by Judgment Creditor’s failure to cite grounds for this request. 

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED. 

--- 

RULING: 

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records. 

ORDER  

Bruce Wasserman’s Motion for an Order to Appoint an Appraiser and Grant Access to Dwelling came on regularly for hearing on January 26, 2024, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: 

THE MOTION IS DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  January 26, 2024                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        Yolanda Orozco, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles