Judge: Gary Y. Tanaka, Case: YC073018, Date: 2022-09-09 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: YC073018 Hearing Date: September 9, 2022 Dept: B
LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT
Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka Friday, September 9, 2022
Department B Calendar No. 6
PROCEEDINGS
Connie Radley, et al. v. Sheila Radley, et al.
YC073018
Connie Radley’s Motion to Void Defendant, Eric Radley's Transfer of His Ownership Interest to Michelle Mcarn
TENTATIVE RULING
Connie Radley’s Motion to Void Defendant, Eric Radley's Transfer of His Ownership Interest to Michelle Mcarn is granted.
Background
On January 2, 2015, plaintiff Connie Radley filed a Complaint against Sheila Radley, Margie Stephenson, Linda Radley, Rickey Radley, Anthony Radley, Eric Radley, Brenda Radley, Majory Radley, Cora Radley, Ferrari Radley, and Jennifer Radley for (1) partition of real property and (2) cancellation of written instruments. Plaintiff alleges she is the owner of a 1/8 interest in the property at 10968 Ardath Avenue, Inglewood, which is co-owned by Defendants. On March 7, 2016, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).
On June 22, 2016, defaults were entered against Sheila Radley, Margie Stephenson, Linda Radley, Rickey Radley, Brenda Radley, Majory Radley, Ferrari Radley, and Jennifer Radley on the Complaint filed on January 2, 2015.
On November 28, 2018, a non-jury trial was held. There was no appearance by Cora Radley. Defendant Eric Radley appeared. The matter was taken under submission. On April 9, 2019, an interlocutory judgment for sale of real property was entered. On July 25, 2019, the Court entered an order appointing a real estate broker to list the property for sale.
On September 16, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s ex parte application for a Court order to issue a writ of possession because Defendant Eric Radley (who lives in the property) refused to comply with the interlocutory judgment. On January 21, 2020, a writ of possession issued.
On August 6, 2021, Rickey Radley’s Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment and Writ of Possession was granted.
Motion to Void Transfer
Plaintiff Connie Radley moves for an order to void or cancel Defendant Eric Radley’s May 22, 2019 transfer of his ownership interest in the subject property on the ground that the transfer was in violation of the Court's April 9, 2019 Interlocutory Judgment “to conduct a private sale of the Subject Property forthwith” and that all owners were required to “cooperate in the sale of the Subject Property including the signing of all necessary documents to effectuate the sale.”
Code Civ. Proc., § 128 states, in relevant part:
(a) Every court shall have the power to do all of the following:
(1) To preserve and enforce order in its immediate presence.
(2) To enforce order in the proceedings before it, or before a person or persons empowered to conduct a judicial investigation under its authority.
(3) To provide for the orderly conduct of proceedings before it, or its officers.
(4) To compel obedience to its judgments, orders, and process, and to the orders of a judge out of court, in an action or proceeding pending therein.”
Civ. Code, § 3412 states: “A written instrument, in respect to which there is a reasonable apprehension that if left outstanding it may cause serious injury to a person against whom it is void or voidable, may, upon his application, be so adjudged, and ordered to be delivered up or canceled.”
On April 9, 2019, an interlocutory judgment for sale of real property was entered. Pursuant to the judgment, all parties, including Eric Radley, were ordered to conduct a sale of the property forthwith. On April 2, 2019, in clear defiance of the judgment, Eric Radley signed a transfer of his ownership in the subject property to Michelle Mcarn. (Plaintiff’s Ex. 1.) The Court notes that the transfer document was purportedly signed on April 2, 2019, which is before the date of the judgment. However, at that point, the proposed judgment had already been served on March 19, 2019. Thus, the transfer was conducted with clear knowledge of the terms of the judgment which was eventually entered later on April 9, 2019. In addition, the transfer was not recorded until May 22, 2019, which is after the date of the judgment.
Pursuant to CCP § 128(a)(4), the Court has authority to compel obedience to its judgment. Defendant’s act of transferring his ownership interest was in clear violation of the terms of the judgment of the Court and in clear disobedience to the judgment. The Court exercises its power to order that the May 22, 2019 transfer of the Deed of Trust as void in order to compel obedience to the Court’s Judgment.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.