Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 21STCV14481, Date: 2025-04-15 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

Case Number: 21STCV14481    Hearing Date: April 15, 2025    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Joyce Faye Atlas (“Plaintiff”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Mike Davidyan (“Defendant”)

            The Court has considered the application, opposition and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

             This action arises out of a dispute concerning real property.  Plaintiff’s April 16, 2021 complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges causes of action for: (1) fraud; (2) undue influence; (3) financial abuse; (4) quiet title; (5) cancellation of instruments; (6) return of real property to elder/dependent adult; and (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress. 

            On October 27, 2023, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant, and his aliases, in the amount of $750,000.00 as well as attorney fees in the amount of $316,066.25. (10/27/2023 Judgment.)

            On March 6, 2025, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application for (1) Issuance of Order to Show Cause Why Order for Sale of Real Property Should not be Made and (2) Order that Judgment Debtor not Encumber or Transfer Interest in Property (the “Application”). On March 7, 2025, the Court granted the ex parte Application and set an Order to Show Cause Re: Why Real Property Should Not be Sold to Satisfy Judgment; Order Not to Encumber, Transfer Interest in or Commit Waste on Real Property. (3/7/2025 Minute Order.)

            On April 2, 2025, Defendant filed an opposition to the Order to Show Cause Re: Why Real Property Should Not be Sold (the “Opposition”). On April 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed a reply (the “Reply).

DISCUSSION

            Under Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 704.760, an application for order of sale of dwelling shall be made under oath, describe the dwelling and contain the following:¿¿ 

1. A statement whether the records of the county tax assessor indicate that there is a current homeowner’s exemption for the dwelling and the person who claimed any such exemption; 

2. A statement whether the dwelling is a homestead, the amount of the homestead exemption and a statement whether a homestead declaration has been recorded by the judgment debtor or their spouse; 

3. A statement of the amount of any liens or encumbrances on the dwelling, the name and address of each person having a lien or encumbrance on the dwelling; and

4. A statement that the judgment is or is not based on a consumer debt.

Upon filing an application for order for the sale of a dwelling, the court shall set a time and place for hearing and order the judgment debtor to show cause why an order for sale should not be made in accordance with the application. (Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) § 704.770.)

The burden of proof at the hearing is determined in the following manner: (1) If the records of the county tax assessor indicate that there is a current homeowner’s exemption for the dwelling claimed by the judgment debtor, the judgment creditor has the burden of proof that the dwelling is not a homestead; (2) If the application states the amount of the homestead exemption, the person claiming the homestead exemption has the burden of proof that the amount of the exemption is other than the amount stated in the application. (CCP § 704.780 subd. (a).)

The court shall determine whether the dwelling is exempt or not. (CCP § 704.780 subd. (b).)

Los Angeles Superior Court rule 3.223 subdivision (a) provides that an application for an order for sale of a dwelling must provide at the hearing competent evidence of the following:

1. The fair market value of the property by a real estate expert;¿ 

2. Litigation guarantee or title report that contains a legal description of the property, the names of the current owners, a list of all deeds of trust, abstracts of judgments, tax liens and other liens recorded against the property, whether a declaration of homestead has been recorded, whether a current homeowner's exemption or disabled veteran's exemption has been filed with the county assessor, and the persons claiming such exemption;¿ 

3.  The amount of any liens or encumbrances on the dwelling, and the names and addresses of the lienholders and when the judgment creditor's lien attached.¿ The judgment creditor must ascertain the precise amounts of obligations secured by senior liens by making a written demand for beneficiary statements from senior lienholders pursuant to Civil Code section 2943; and 

4. The date of service on the judgment creditor of the levying officer's notice that the dwelling was levied upon. 

The Application complies with the requirements of CCP section 704.760. The Application describes the dwelling, 162 East Claremont Street, Pasadena, California (the “Pasadena Property”) and contains: (a) a statement that there is no homeowner’s exemption on the property; (b) a statement that Defendant has filed a homestead declaration; (c) a statement of the amount of all encumbrances on the property; and (d) a statement that the judgment is not based on a consumer debt. (App., Pollack Declaration ¶ 4, Ex. 3; 3/14/2025 Pollack Decl.)

            Plaintiff argues that the Pasadena Property is not a homestead and that the recent homestead declaration is invalid. Plaintiff presents evidence that Defendant does not live in the Pasadena Property. (Application, pp. 3:16-4:1; Exs. 4 [property photos], 7 [Davidyan Depo.].) Plaintiff further argues that the homestead exemption is only valid if Defendant lived at the Pasadena Property as his principal place of residence as of the date Plaintiff’s lien was recorded and lived there continuously afterwards. (App., p. 5:19-28.) In this case, Davidyan recorded the homestead declaration on March 5, 2024, more than three months after the lien was recorded on November 21, 2023. (App., Ex. 3.) In addition, the evidence indicates that no one has lived at the Pasadena Property since at least May 2024. (App., Ex. 4.)

            In the Opposition, Defendant argues that his absence from the Pasadena Property is only temporary and thus he is not precluded from claiming the homestead exemption. (Opp., pp. 4:5-5:10.) Defendant asserts that he lived there in 2022 but moved out sometime in 2023 due to a fire. (Davidyan Decl., ¶ 3.) He asserts that while the Pasadena Property has been undergoing repair since, he intends to move back in upon completion of the renovations. (Davidyan Decl., ¶ 3.) Defendant also asserts that he does not own the property located at 4540 San Blas Avenue in Woodland Hills, California (the “Woodland Hills Property”), and is only living there temporarily while repairs are ongoing at the Pasadena Property. (Davidyan Decl., ¶ 3.) Defendant presents evidence that the mortgage, utilities and insurance on the Pasadena Property are all in his name. (Davidyan Decl., ¶ 4, Exs. A, B, C.)

            In the Reply, Plaintiff presents evidence that during Defendant’s April 13, 2023, deposition, Defendant stated that he was unfamiliar with the Pasadena Property and that he did not own it. (Reply, p. 1:8-2:7, Ex. 8.) Plaintiff also presents evidence that Defendant does in fact own the Woodland Hills Property. (Reply, Ex. 9.)

            Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has met her burden of proof to establish that the dwelling, the Pasadena Property, is not a homestead. There is no evidence that the Pasadena Property is Defendant’s principal place of residence. The evidence indicates that Defendant did not reside at the Pasadena Property when the lien or homestead exemption was recorded and for all relevant time periods the Pasadena Property was uninhabitable. Defendant owns the Woodland Hills Property where he has resided since at least 2023. This contradicts Defendant’s argument that the Pasadena Property is his principal place of residence. The evidence Defendant presents in the Opposition fails to refute this. Defendant submits a builder’s risk insurance policy that began in February 2025, along with a utility bill and repair estimate, both dated March 2025. (Davidyan Decl., Ex. B, C, E.) This is insufficient to establish that Defendant lived at the Pasadena Property during the relevant time period or intended to return prior to Plaintiff filing the instant Application.

Lastly, the Application complies with Los Angeles Superior Court rule 3.223 subdivision (a). Plaintiff provides competent evidence of: (1) the fair market value of the property; (2) litigation guarantee; (3) the amount of all liens and encumbrances; and (4) date of service on the judgment creditor. (App., Exs. 2-3.)

In light of Defendant’s lack of evidence rebutting the law and evidence presented in the Application, the Court ORDERS that the property located at 162 East Claremont Street, Pasadena, California is to be sold.

Plaintiff Joyce Faye Atlas’s Application is GRANTED.

Moving Party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.           

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Dated this 15th day of April 2025