Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 22CHCV00676, Date: 2024-05-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV00676    Hearing Date: May 13, 2024    Dept: F43

Dept. F43

Date: 5-13-24

Case #22CHCV00676 , Sergey Vershinin vs. Janie Cohen

Trial Date: 2-10-25

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE

MOVING PARTY: Chicago Title Company

RESPONDING PARTY: No response has been filed.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Chicago Title Company is requesting that the Court grant it leave to intervene in this action.

RULING: Motion is granted.

SUMMARY OF ACTION

This action is based on a cancelled real estate transaction in which Chicago Title Company (CTC) was the escrow company. Plaintiff Serge Vershinin (Vershinin) was the intended buyer of land in Los Angeles. Defendant Jane Cohen (Cohen) was the intended seller. Cross-Defendant Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company (Coldwell) was the real estate company that represented both the buyer and the seller, and Cross-Defendant Willaim Anthony (Anthony) was the real estate agent employed by Coldwell and was handling the transaction.

The complaint in this action seek monetary damages that include a portion of the funds currently held in CTC’s escrow account for this transaction. Throughout the course of escrow, Vershinin, as the buyer, deposited $60,000 into escrow. After some issues with the property were discovered during appraisal, the parties discussed lowering the price of the property, but were unable to come to an agreement. The seller, Cohen, then cancelled the transaction.

Dormant Solutions Group, on behalf of CTC, sent cancellation instructions to the buyer and seller. The seller executed the instructions, seeking $35,000 of the $60,000 escrow funds. However, CTC has not received mutual cancellation instructions signed by both parties, and the escrow funds remain with CTC.

CTC’s motion claims that Plaintiff complaint misstates the amount of escrow that he deposited (his complaint says $30,000) and failed to name CTC in the complaint, despite CTC being the party holding the escrow funds. CTC further indicates that the seller’s cross-complaint does not address the escrow funds.

CTC now seeks to interplead the escrow funds with the Court in this action so that it is not necessary to file a separate interpleader action. No opposition has been filed to CTC’s motion.

ANALYSIS

An intervention is when a third party is permitted to become a party to an action between other parties, either by joining the plaintiff in claiming what is sought by the complaint, or by joining the defendant, or by demanding something adverse to both the plaintiff and the defendant. (See CCP § 387(b).) The requirements for interventions are a timely application and satisfaction of the condition that the party seeking intervention claims an interest relating to the transaction that is the subject of the action and that the party is so situated that the disposition of the action may impair that party’s ability to protect that interest, unless that party’s interest is adequately represented. (CCP § 387(d)(1)(B).) Alternatively, the Cour may, upon timely application, permit a nonparty to intervene in the action if the party has an interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both. (CCP § 387(d)(2).)

CTC argues that it is eligible to intervene under both the mandatory provisions of Section 387(d)(1)(B) and the permissive provisions of Section 387(d)(2).

CTC argues that the facts support mandatory interventions because it is the holder of the escrow funds which Plaintiff seeks a portion of, and CTC has been holding the funds for over three years without the parties agreeing on how the funds should be paid. CTC’s counsel indicates that CTC had been considering an interpleader action when it learned of this action in December 2023. (Hawkins Decl., ¶ 12.) CTC argues that the disposition of this action without its intervention may result in resolution as to only a portion of the escrow funds. CTC therefore seeks intervention to file a cross-complaint in interpleader seeking to deposit the funds with the Court.

Next, CTC argues that its intervention is also permissive because it has an interest in the action due to it being the holder of the escrow funds. The Court has discretion to permit a nonparty to intervene in litigation pending between others if (1) the nonparty has a direct and immediate interest in the litigation; (2) the intervention will not enlarge the issues in the case; and (3) the reasons for intervention outweigh any opposition by the existing parties. (See Truck Ins. Exch. V. Superior Ct. (Transco Syndicate #1) (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 342, 346; Reliance Ins. Co. v. Superior Ct. (Wells) (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 383, 386.)

As already established, CTC has a direct and immediate interest in this action. CTC’s intervention will not enlarge the issues in this case because the escrow funds held by CTC are already at issue in Plaintiff’s complaint. Finally, there is no opposition to CTC’s inclusion in this litigation.

CTC’s motion to intervene is granted. CTC’s proposed cross-complaint is deemed filed.

Moving party to give notice to all parties.