Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 24STCV32232, Date: 2025-04-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV32232    Hearing Date: April 3, 2025    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Simone Shah, in her capacity as trustee of the Simone Shah Trust (“Shah”) moves for an order to determine the fair market value, and to send to the parties in this case a notice of buyout, of the following real properties: (1) 6004 Hayes Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90042 (“Hayes”); (2) 1821 S. Ardmore Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90006 (“Ardmore”); (3) 1672 South Harvard Blvd., Los Angeles, California 90006 (“Harvard”); (4) 2225 Effie Street, Los Angeles, California 90026 (“Effie”); and (5) 2214 Aaron Street, Los Angeles, CA 90026 (“Aaron”) (collectively, the “Properties”).

            The Court denies Defendant’s request to determine the values of the Properties as being the minimum or approximate values alleged in the Complaint.

The parties appear to agree that the appointment of James Stein as appraiser would be appropriate. The Court is thus inclined to do so. If any party objects to Stein’s appointment as appraiser, the Court requests that they raise the issue at the hearing.

            The Court CONTINUES the motions to determine the value of the Properties pending the results of the appraisal.  The Court will set a date for the continued hearing in consultation with the parties.

Background

This is a partition action. Plaintiffs Alexander Rivkin (“Rivkin”) and Man Lam (“Lam”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action on December 6, 2024, raising claims for partition of each of the Properties, among other claims.

On February 26, 2025, Shah filed a series of five motions, each seeking a determination of market value and notice of buyout as to a different one of the five Properties. Plaintiffs filed a separate opposition to each motion. Shah filed a reply in support of each motion.

Legal Standard

“In an action to partition real property, the property shall be partitioned under this chapter unless all of the cotenants otherwise agree in a record.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 874.313, subd. (a).)

“(a) Except as otherwise provided in subdivisions (b) and (c), the court shall determine the fair market value of the property by ordering an appraisal pursuant to subdivision (d).

(b) If all cotenants have agreed to the value of the property or to another method of valuation, the court shall adopt that value or the value produced by the agreed method of valuation.

(c) If the court determines that the evidentiary value of an appraisal is outweighed by the cost of the appraisal, the court, after an evidentiary hearing, shall determine the fair market value of the property and send notice to the parties of the value.

(d) If the court orders an appraisal, the court shall appoint a disinterested real estate appraiser licensed in the State of California to determine the fair market value of the property assuming sole ownership of the fee simple estate. On completion of the appraisal, the appraiser shall file a sworn or verified appraisal with the court.

(e) If an appraisal is conducted pursuant to subdivision (d), not later than 10 days after the appraisal is filed, the court shall send notice to each party with a known address, stating all of the following:

(1) The appraised fair market value of the property.

(2) That the appraisal is available at the court clerk's office.

(3) That a party may file with the court an objection to the appraisal not later than 30 days after the notice is sent, stating the grounds for the objection.

(f) If an appraisal is filed with the court pursuant to subdivision (d), the court shall conduct a hearing to determine the fair market value of the property not sooner than 30 days after a copy of the notice of the appraisal is sent to each party under subdivision (e), whether or not an objection to the appraisal is filed under paragraph (3) of subdivision (e). In addition to the court-ordered appraisal, the court may consider any other evidence of value offered by a party.

(g) After a hearing under subdivision (f), but before considering the merits of the partition action, the court shall determine the fair market value of the property and send notice to the parties of the value.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 874.316.)

Discussion

            Shah argues that the parties are in agreement as to the value of the Properties. In particular, Shah argues that Plaintiffs have attested to the market value of each of the Properties in their verified Complaint. (See Complaint ¶¶ 25, 32, 38, 45, 52.) The Court disagrees. Plaintiffs allege an approximate value for Effie and only allege minimum values for the remaining properties. Importantly, Plaintiffs now state that they disagree that the values referred to in the Complaint are the actual values of the Properties, arguing that the true values could be far higher. Thus, the proper method to determine the values of the Properties is by appraisal.

            The parties appear to agree that the appointment of James Stein as appraiser would be appropriate. The Court is thus inclined to do so. If any party objects to Stein’s appointment as appraiser, the Court requests that they raise the issue at the hearing.

            The Court continues the motions to determine the value of the Properties pending the results of the appraisal.