Judge John J. Kralik, Case Number: 21BBCV00565, Date: 2025-06-06 Tentative Ruling

Counsel who wish to submit on the tentative ruling may do so by emailing BURDeptB@lacourt.org

PLEASE WRITE THE CASE NUMBER AND PARTY YOU REPRESENT. YOU MAY ONLY SUBMIT ON BEHALF OF THE PARTY YOU REPRESENT. YOU MAY NOT SUBMIT ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER PARTY. Counsel are directed to cc all other counsel if you are submitting on the tentative ruling.

IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR NEED CLARIFICATION ON THE TENTATIVE, YOU MUST APPEAR AND ADDRESS YOUR QUESTIONS TO THE COURT.

IF BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE RULING, THE TENTATIVE RULING THEN BECOMES THE ORDER OF THE COURT ON THE MOTION DATE AND NO APPEARANCES ARE NECESSARY.

THERE WILL BE NO RESPONSES TO ANY INQUIRIES SUBMITTED THROUGH THIS SITE.

Warning regarding electronic appearances: All software for remote or electronic appearances is subject to malfunction based on system weakness and human error, which can originate from any of the multiple parties participating each morning. The seamless operation of the Court’s electronic appearance software is dependent on numerous inconstant and fluctuating factors that may impact whether you, or other counsel or the Court itself can be heard in a particular case. Not all these factors are within the control of the courtroom staff. For example, at times, the system traps participants in electronic purgatories where they cannot be heard and where the courtroom staff is not aware of their presence. If you call the courtroom, please be respectful of the fact that a court hearing is going on, and that the courtroom staff is doing their best to use an imperfect system. If it is truly important to you to be heard, please show up to the courtroom in the normal way. Parking is free or reasonable in Burbank.

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department B

On August 5, 2024, the Court issued its Final Statement of Decision and entered Judgment in this matter. Judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff Christo J. Halekakis and against Defendants Nico Halekakis aka Nick J. Halekakis and Megan T. Lorick Halekakis fka Megan T. Lorick for the amount of $834,718.50. The Court found Plaintiff to be the prevailing party and stated that Plaintiff may recover attorneys’ fees by motion and costs by Bill of Costs.

On March 24, 2025, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application for order to show cause to judgment debtors Nico Halekakis and Megan Lorick Halekakis why order for sale of dwelling should not be made in accordance with application for sale of dwelling located at 10926 Hartsook Street, North Hollywood, CA 91601.

On March 26, 2025, Judge Yolanda Orozco granted the ex parte application and set the OSC for June 6, 2025.

On May 26, 2025, Defendants Niko Halekakis and Megan Lorick Halekakis filed an opposition brief.[1]

(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), the interest of a natural person in a dwelling may not be sold under this division to enforce a money judgment except pursuant to a court order for sale obtained under this article and the dwelling exemption shall be determined under this article.

(b) If the dwelling is personal property or is real property in which the judgment debtor has a leasehold estate with an unexpired term of less than two years at the time of levy:

(1) A court order for sale is not required and the procedures provided in this article relating to the court order for sale do not apply.

(2) An exemption claim shall be made and determined as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 703.510).

(a) Promptly after a dwelling is levied upon (other than a dwelling described in subdivision (b) of Section 704.740), the levying officer shall serve notice on the judgment creditor that the levy has been made and that the property will be released unless the judgment creditor complies with the requirements of this section. Service shall be made personally or by mail. Within 20 days after service of the notice, the judgment creditor shall apply to the court for an order for sale of the dwelling and shall file a copy of the application with the levying officer. If the judgment creditor does not file the copy of the application for an order for sale of the dwelling within the allowed time, the levying officer shall release the dwelling.

(b) If the dwelling is located in a county other than the county where the judgment was entered:

(1) The judgment creditor shall apply to the superior court of the county where the dwelling is located.

(2) The judgment creditor shall file with the application an abstract of judgment in the form prescribed by Section 674 or, in the case of a judgment described in Section 697.320, a certified copy of the judgment.

(3) The judgment creditor shall pay the filing fee for a motion as provided in subdivision (a) of Section 70617 of the Government Code.

Under CCP § 704.760, the judgment creditor must submit an application made under oath that describes the dwelling and includes the following:

(a) A statement whether or not the records of the county tax assessor indicate that there is a current homeowner's exemption or disabled veteran's exemption for the dwelling and the person or persons who claimed any such exemption.

(b) A statement, which may be based on information and belief, whether the dwelling is a homestead and the amount of the homestead exemption, if any, and a statement whether or not the records of the county recorder indicate that a homestead declaration under Article 5 (commencing with Section 704.910) that describes the dwelling has been recorded by the judgment debtor or the spouse of the judgment debtor.

(c) A statement of the amount of any liens or encumbrances on the dwelling, the name of each person having a lien or encumbrance on the dwelling, and the address of such person used by the county recorder for the return of the instrument creating such person's lien or encumbrance after recording.

(d) A statement that the judgment is based on a consumer debt, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 699.730, or that the judgment is not based on a consumer debt, and if the judgment is based on a consumer debt, whether the judgment is based on a consumer debt that was secured by the debtor's principal place of residence at the time it was incurred or a statement indicating which of the exemptions listed in subdivision (b) of Section 699.730 are applicable. If the statement indicates that paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) is applicable, the statement shall also provide the dollar amount of the original judgment on which the lien is based. If there is more than one basis, the statement shall indicate all bases that are applicable.

(CCP § 704.760.)
Upon the filing of the application, CCP § 704.770(a) authorizes the Court to set an OSC for the judgment debtor to show cause why an order for the sale of the property should not occur. Not later than 30 days before the OSC, the judgment creditor must do both of the following:

(1) Serve on the judgment debtor a copy of the order to show cause, a copy of the application of the judgment creditor, and a copy of the notice of the hearing in the form prescribed by the Judicial Council. Service shall be made personally or by mail

(2) Personally serve a copy of each document listed in paragraph (1) on an occupant of the dwelling or, if there is no occupant present at the time service is attempted, post a copy of each document in a conspicuous place at the dwelling.

With the reply papers, Plaintiff requests judicial notice of Exhibit A, which includes the Trust Deed recorded on May 4, 2021 of the Hartsook Property. The request is granted.

Plaintiff moves for an order for sale of the dwelling owned by Defendants located at 10926 Hartsook Street in Noth Hollywood (“Hartsook Property”). In support of the application, Plaintiff provides his declaration and the declarations of his counsel Eric A. Schreiber. The evidence provided includes:

· The address and legal description of the property. (March 26, 2025 Order to Show Cause Why Dwelling Located at 10926 Hartsook Street, North Hollywood, California 91601 Should Not Be Sold at p.2; Mot., Ex. F.)

· CCP § 704.760(a): The records of the county tax assessor do not reflect the filing of a homestead declaration, a homeowner’s exemption, or a veteran’s exemption for the Hartsook Property. (App. at p.3.) (The Court notes that the application’s statements and exhibits have been certified and verified by Plaintiff and made under the penalty of perjury, such that they were made under oath.)

· CCP § 704.760(b): The records of the county recorder do not reflect the filing of a homestead declaration that describes the dwelling and that has been recorded by Defendants. Plaintiff states that since he jointly acquired the Hartsook Property, it has been used as a rental property and at no time did Defendants or their family reside at or use the property as their principal residence. (Pl.’s Decl., ¶5.) He states that to his knowledge, neither Defendants has ever claimed the Hartsook Property as their homestead or filed any form of homestead exemption on it. (Id.) He states that there is presently a tenant occupying the property, but the tenant is in the process of moving out. (Id.)

o In contrast, Plaintiff states that he is aware that Defendants have filed a homestead exemption on 3828 Gleneagles Drive, Tarzana CA 91356 (“Gleneagles Property”), and that the Gleneagles Property has been Defendants’ primary residence since about 2006. (Id., ¶3 at 9:7-13, Ex. E [2024 Annual Secured Property Tax Bill re Gleneagles Property].) Plaintiff states that Defendants own 8 homes and 3 parcels of vacant land and lists the addresses. (Id., ¶3.)

· CCP § 704.760(c): The lien/encumbrance(s) on the subject dwelling include: (1) Cardinal Financial Company, LP d.b.a. Sebonic Financial at 3701 Arco Corporate Drive, Suite 200, Charlotte, NC 28273 in the lien amount of $$387,000 as of May 4, 2021. (Pl.’s Decl., ¶4, Ex. F.)

· CCP § 704.760(d): The judgment is not based on a consumer debt pursuant to CCP § 699.730(a). (App. at p.4.)

· To date, approximately $8,000 has been collected on the judgment by way of bank levy and with post-judgment interest, the amount of the judgment exceeds $1 million. (Schreiber Decl., ¶5.) According to the Court’s Statement of Decision (final on August 5, 2024), the Court valued the Hartsook Property at $1.1 million. (Schreiber Decl., ¶6, Ex. C [Statement of Decision at p.24].)

· Mr. Schreiber states that pursuant to CCP § 704.770, he is required to file an application, the Court will then set an OSC which is served on Defendants, and he is required to serve a copy of the application, the OSC, and notice of the OSC on Defendants 30 or more days prior to the hearing. Thus, he states that he did not serve notice of the ex parte application. (Id., ¶7.)

In opposition, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not shown whether he filed the application with the levying officer (the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department) within 20 days of the notice of levy; if Plaintiff has not, then Defendants argue that the Hartsook Property must be released by the levying officer pursuant to CCP § 704.750(a). In his declaration, Mr. Schreiber states that a writ of execution was issued in favor of Plaintiff and that on March 11, 2025, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s office sent him a notice indicating that it had placed a levy on the Hartsook Property. (Id., ¶¶3-4.) In Plaintiff’s May 30, 2025 declaration (filed with the reply brief), he states that on April 1, 2025, he personally hand-delivered a file-stamped copy of the OSC and all accompanying documents in this action on the Sheriff’s office, who is the levying officer in the case. (Pl.’s 5/30/25 Decl., ¶2.) Thus, this requirement has been satisfied.

Next, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not provided a real estate expert’s valuation of the property. Los Angeles Superior Court Local Rule, Rule 3.223 states:

(a) Evidence Required. An application for an order for sale of a dwelling must provide at the hearing competent evidence of the following:

(LASC Local Rule 3.223(a)(1).) According to the Court’s Statement of Decision, no appraiser of the Hartsook Property testified, such that the Court took the values provided by the parties and determined the value of the property at $1.1 million. (Statement of Decision at p.24.)

With the reply papers, Plaintiff filed the declaration of Sam Plotkin, a licensed real estate broker. (The Court notes that the first declaration is unsigned, but the declaration on the thirteenth page of the document includes a signed version of the declaration.) Mr. Plotkin states that he prepared his valuation opinion by consulting numerous sources and comparing comparable home sales within a one-mile radius. (Plotkin Decl., ¶3.) He opines that the Hartsook Property is worth $1,120,000 ($830/square foot living area valuation) and that he ordered a preliminary title report of the property. (Id., ¶¶4-5; Ex. A [Fidelity National Title Company, Title Report, Order Date 5/29/25].) This declaration cures the deficiency raised by Defendants.

Plaintiff is ordered to prepare and electronically lodge with the Court a [Proposed] Order re Sale of Dwelling for the Court’s signing.

[1] Plaintiff argues that the Court should not consider the opposition brief because Defendants/judgment debtors have not filed a continuation statement that their counsel remain for judgment collection matters. CCP § 684.020 states:

(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), when a writ, notice, order, or other paper is required to be served under this title on the judgment debtor, it shall be served on the judgment debtor instead of the attorney for the judgment debtor.

(b) The writ, notice, order, or other paper shall be served on the attorney specified by the judgment debtor rather than on the judgment debtor if all of the following requirements are satisfied:

(1) The judgment debtor has filed with the court and served on the judgment creditor a request that service on the judgment debtor under this title be made by serving the attorney specified in the request. Service on the judgment creditor of the request shall be made personally or by mail. The request shall include a consent, signed by the attorney, to receive service under this title on behalf of the judgment debtor.

(2) The request has not been revoked by the judgment debtor.

(3) The consent to receive service has not been revoked by the attorney.

(c) A request or consent under subdivision (b) may be revoked by filing with the court a notice revoking the request or consent. A copy of the notice revoking the request or consent shall be served on the judgment creditor. Service shall be made personally or by mail. The judgment creditor is not bound by the revocation until the judgment creditor has received a copy of the notice revoking the request or consent.

(CCP § 684.020.)

Although a continuation statement was not filed by defense counsel, the Court will consider the merits of the opposition brief. Section 684.020 is relevant regarding who Plaintiff/judgment creditor is required to serve; however, this section does not provide a basis to strike the opposition papers filed by counsel on behalf of a judgment debtor.