Judge: James C. Chalfant, Case: 23STLC06782, Date: 2024-02-13 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STLC06782 Hearing Date: February 13, 2024 Dept: 85
Ally Bank v. Evaristo
Cuellar Hernandez, 23STLC06782
Tentative decision on application
for a writ of possession: denied
Plaintiff
Ally Bank (“Bank”) seeks a writ of possession against Defendant Evaristo
Cuellar Hernandez (“Hernandez”) to recover a 2017 Honda Pilot, VIN 5FNYF5H7XHB000231
(“Vehicle”).
The
court has read and considered the moving papers (no opposition was filed) and
renders the following tentative decision.
A. Statement of the Case
1.
Complaint
Plaintiff
Bank filed the Complaint against Defendant Hernandez on October 20, 2023, alleging
(1) claim and delivery and (2) money on a contract. The Complaint alleges as follows.
Hernandez
entered into a written Contract in which Bank’s assignor would finance the
purchase of the Vehicle, which was collateral.
At all relevant times, Bank has been the holder of a first priority security
interest in the Vehicle. The Certificate
of Title from the California Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”) reflects Bank’s
interest. The Contract gives Bank
the right to take and have immediate possession of the Vehicle after
default.
Hernandez
breached the Contract on September 28, 2022, by failing to make the $486.79
monthly installment due. He has since
failed to make the regular monthly payments of $486.79 due thereafter. The balance due and owing is $18,645.05. Demands to turn over the Vehicle have
failed.
Bank
seeks recovery and a pretrial writ of possession for the Vehicle, a temporary
restraining order enjoining Hernandez from transferring possession of the
Vehicle, and $18,645.05 in damages less proceeds from Bank’s
resale of the Vehicle.
2.
Course of Proceedings
On
January 15, 2024, Bank served Hernandez with the Complaint, Summons, and moving
papers by substitute service, effective January 25, 2024.
B.
Applicable Law
A
writ of possession is issued as a provisional remedy in a cause of action for
claim and delivery, also known as replevin.
See Pillsbury, Madison
& Sutro v. Schectman, (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1279, 1288. As a provisional remedy, the right to
possession is only temporary, and title and the right to possess are determined
in the final judgment.
A
writ of possession is available in any pending action. It also is available where an action has been
stayed pending arbitration, so long as the arbitration award may be ineffectual
without provisional relief. See CCP §1281.7.
1. Procedure
Upon
the filing of the complaint or at any time thereafter, a plaintiff may apply
for an order for a writ of possession.
Unlike attachment, where Judicial Council forms are optional, the
parties must use the mandatory approved Judicial Council forms in a claim and
delivery proceeding. (Judicial Council
Forms CD-100 et seq.).
A
plaintiff must make a written application for a writ of possession. CCP §512.010(a), (b); (Mandatory Form
CD-100); CCP §512.010(a). A verified
complaint alone is insufficient. 6
Witkin, California Procedure, (5th ed. 2008) §255, p.203. The application may be supported by
declarations and/or a verified complaint.
CCP §516.030. The declarations or
complaint must set forth admissible evidence except where expressly permitted
to be shown on information and belief. Id.
The
application must be executed under oath and include: (1) A showing of the basis
of the plaintiff's claim and that the plaintiff is entitled to possession of
the property claimed. If the plaintiff's
claim is based on a written instrument, a copy of it must be attached; (2) A
showing that the property is wrongfully detained by the defendant, how the
defendant came into possession of it, and, the reasons for the detention based
on the plaintiff’s best knowledge, information, and belief; (3) A specific description
of the property and statement of its value; (4) The location of the property
according to the plaintiff’s best knowledge, information, and belief. If the property, or some part of it, is
within a private place which may have to be entered to take possession, a
showing of probable cause to believe that the property is located there; and
(5) A statement that the property has not been taken for (a) a tax, assessment,
or fine, pursuant to a statute, or (b) an execution against the plaintiff’s
property. Alternatively, a statement
that if the property was seized for one of these purposes, it is by statute
exempt from such seizure. CCP
§512.010(b).
2. The Hearing
Before
noticing a hearing, the plaintiff must serve the defendant with all of the
following: (1) A copy of the summons and complaint; (2) A Notice of Application
and Hearing; and (3) A copy of the application and any supporting declaration. CCP §512.030(a). If the defendant has not appeared in the
action, service must be made in the same manner as service of summons and
complaint. CCP §512.030(b).
Each
party shall file with the court and serve upon the other party any declarations
and points and authorities intended to be relied upon at the hearing. CCP §512.050.
At the hearing, the court decides the merits of the application based on
the pleadings and declarations. Id. Upon a showing of good cause, the court may
receive and consider additional evidence and authority presented at the
hearing, or may continue the hearing for the production of such additional
evidence, oral or documentary, or the filing of other affidavits or points and
authorities. Id.
The
court may order issuance of a writ of possession if both of the following are
found: (1) The plaintiff has established the probable validity of the
plaintiff’s claim to possession of the property; and (2) The undertaking
requirements of CCP section 515.010 are satisfied. CCP §512.060(a). “A claim has ‘probable validity’ where it is
more likely than not that the plaintiff will obtain a judgment against the
defendant on that claim.” CCP
§511.090. This requires that the
plaintiff establish a prima facie case; the writ shall not issue if the
defendant shows a reasonable probability of a successful defense to the claim
and delivery cause of action. Witkin,
California Procedure, (5th ed. 2008) §261, p.208. A defendant’s claim of defect in the property
is not a defense to the plaintiff’s right to possess it. RCA Service Co. v. Superior Court,
(1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 1, 3.
No
writ directing the levying officer to enter a private place to take possession
of any property may be issued unless the plaintiff has established that there
is probable cause to believe that the property is located there. CCP §512.060(b).
The
successful plaintiff may obtain a preliminary injunction containing the same
provisions as a TRO that remains in effect until the property is seized by the
levying officer.[1] CCP §513.010(c).
The
court may also issue a “turnover order” directing the defendant to transfer
possession of the property to the plaintiff (See Mandatory Form CD-120).
The order must notify the defendant that failure to comply may subject
him or her to contempt of court. CCP
§512.070. The turnover remedy is not
issued in lieu of a writ, but in conjunction with it to provide the plaintiff
with a less expensive means of obtaining possession. See
Edwards v Superior Court, (“Edwards”) (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 173,
178.
3. The Plaintiff’s Undertaking
Generally,
the court cannot issue an order for a writ of possession until the plaintiff
has filed an undertaking with the court (Mandatory Form CD-140 for personal
sureties). CCP §515.010(a). The undertaking shall provide that the
sureties are bound to the defendant for the return of the property to the
defendant, if return of the property is ordered, and for the payment to the
defendant of any sum recovered against the plaintiff. Id.
The undertaking shall be in an amount not less than twice the value of
the defendant's interest in the property or in a greater amount. Id.
The value of the defendant's interest in the property is determined by
the market value of the property less the amount due and owing on any
conditional sales contract or security agreement and all liens and encumbrances
on the property, and any other factors necessary to determine the defendant’s
interest in the property. Id.
However,
where the defendant has no interest in the property, the court must waive the requirement
of the plaintiff’s undertaking and include in the order for issuance of the
writ the amount of the defendant’s undertaking sufficient to satisfy the
requirements of CCP section 515.020(b). CCP
§515.010(b).
C. Statement of Facts
On March 14, 2020, Hernandez
and Bank’s assignor, California Motor Trade, Inc. (“CMT”), entered into a
written Contract for purchase of the Vehicle.
Singleton Decl., ¶5, Ex. A. Pursuant
to the Contract, Hernandez was required to make 75 monthly installments of $486.79
beginning on April 28, 2020. Singleton
Decl., ¶5, Ex. A. In the event of Hernandez’s
default for failure to pay, CMT had the right to assess a 5% late charge if ten
days have passed since a payment’s due date, accelerate the amount owed, and
repossess the Vehicle. Singleton Decl.,
¶5, Ex. A.
CMT
assigned all of its rights under the Contract to Ally Financial, Inc. (“Ally Financial”). Singleton Decl., ¶5, Ex. A. The April 3, 2020 Certificate of Title from
the DMV reflects Ally Financial’s interest in the Vehicle as a lienholder. Singleton Decl., ¶5, Ex. B. On October 9, 2023, Financial assigned the
Contract to Bank. Singleton Decl., ¶5,
Ex. A.
Hernandez
breached the Contract on September 28, 2022 when he failed to pay $486.79. Singleton Decl., ¶6. He has since failed to make the regular
monthly payments of $486.79 due thereafter.
Singleton Decl., ¶6. As of October
9, 2023, the balance due and owing is $18,645.05. Singleton Decl., ¶6. Demands to turn over the Vehicle have
failed. Singleton Decl., ¶8.
The
J.D. Power report for October 9, 2023 lists the Vehicle’s wholesale value as $18,775
and retail value as $21,475. Singleton
Decl., ¶7, Ex. C.
The
Contract and Certificate of Title list Hernandez’s address as 290 W Waterman
Ave Apt D, El Centro, CA 92243.
Singleton Decl., Exs. A-B. Bank’s
file on Hernandez lists his address as both 290 W Waterman Ave Apt D, El
Centro, CA 92243 and 2451 W Holt Ave, El Centro, CA 92243. Singleton Decl., ¶10. Bank believes the Vehicle is currently at either
address. Singleton Decl., ¶10.
D. Analysis
Plaintiff
Bank seeks a writ of possession against Hernandez for the Vehicle.
1.
Untimely Notice
On January 15,
2024, Bank served Hernandez with the Complaint, Summons, and moving papers by
substitute service, effective January 25, 2024.
Unless otherwise ordered or specifically provided by law, all moving and
supporting papers for an application for writ of possession shall be served and
filed at least 16 court days before the hearing. CCP §1005(b). As January
25 is only 12 court days before this hearing,[2] the application
must be denied for insufficient notice.
2.
Breach of Agreement
The
Contract required Hernandez to make 75 monthly installments of $486.79 for the
Vehicle. Singleton Decl., ¶5, Ex.
A. Any late payment would incur a 5%
late charge and entitle the assignor to accelerate the amount owed and
repossess the Vehicle. Singleton Decl.,
¶5, Ex. A. CMT assigned all of its
rights under the Contract to Financial, who then assigned them to Bank. Singleton Decl., ¶5, Ex. A. The Certificate of Title from the DMV
reflects Financial’s interest in the Vehicle as a lienholder before the
assignment to Bank. Singleton
Decl., ¶5, Ex. B.
In seeking a writ of possession, the supporting declaration
must be set forth with particularity.
CCP §516.030. This means that the
plaintiff must show evidentiary facts rather than the ultimate facts commonly
found in pleadings. A recitation of
conclusions without a foundation of evidentiary facts is insufficient. See Rodes v. Shannon, (1961)
194 Cal.App.2d 743, 749 (declaration containing conclusions inadequate for
summary judgment); Schessler v. Keck, (1956) 138 Cal.App.2d 663, 669
(same).
Bank
presents conclusory evidence that the balance due is $18,645.05. Singleton Decl., ¶6. Bank fails to support this
conclusion with a payment history or calculation that these are the amounts
owed.
3.
Undertaking
The
undertaking shall be in an amount not less than twice the value of the
defendant's interest in the property or in a greater amount. CCP §515.010(a).
The
Vehicle’s retail value is estimated to be $21,475. Singleton Decl., ¶7, Ex. C. The balance Hernandez owes is $18,645.05. Singleton Decl., ¶6. Because the difference is $21,475 - $18,645.05
= $2,829.95, Hernandez’s interest in the Vehicle is $2,829.95. The undertaking would be $2,829.95 x 2 = $5,659.9.
4.
Redelivery
When
an undertaking is required, the defendant may prevent the plaintiff from taking
possession by filing an undertaking in an amount equal to either the amount of
the plaintiff’s undertaking (CCP
§515.020(a)) or the amount determined by the court under CCP section
515.010(b). The redelivery
bond would be the amount owed of $18,645.05.
5.
Order to Enter Private Property
No
writ directing the levying officer to enter a private place to take possession
of any property may be issued unless the plaintiff has established that there
is probable cause to believe that the property is located there. CCP §512.060(b).
The
Contract and Certificate of Title list Hernandez’s address as 290 W Waterman
Ave Apt D, El Centro, CA 92243.
Singleton Decl., Exs. A-B. Bank asserts
that Hernandez’s address and the Vehicle’s current location is either 290 W
Waterman Ave Apt D, El Centro, CA 92243 or 2451 W Holt Ave, El Centro, CA
92243. Singleton Decl., ¶10. Bank provides no documentary evidence to
support the assertion that the Vehicle is on Holt Avenue. Nonetheless, Bank could obtain a writ to
enter this location as a private residence.
6.
Turnover Order
The
court may issue a turnover order directing the defendant to transfer possession
of the property to the plaintiff (See
Mandatory Form CD-120). The order must
notify the defendant that failure to comply may subject him or her to contempt
of court. CCP §512.070. The turnover remedy is not issued in lieu of
a writ, but in conjunction with it to provide the plaintiff with a less
expensive means of obtaining possession.
See Edwards, supra,
230 Cal.App.3d at 178.
Bank
requests a turnover order compelling Hernandez to transfer possession of the
Vehicle. Mem. at 3. The request for a turnover order is granted.
E.
Conclusion
The
application for a writ of possession for the Vehicle lacks sufficient notice. Even if considered, Bank fails to provide
documentary evidence of the amount owed.
The application is denied.