Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 22STCP04186, Date: 2023-04-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCP04186     Hearing Date: April 3, 2023    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      PETITION TO DECLARE MOBILEHOME ABANDONED

 

MOVING PARTY:   Petitioner Belmont Shores Mobile Estates

RESP. PARTY:         None

 

PETITION TO DECLARE MOBILEHOME ABANDONED

(Civ. Code § 798.61)

 

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Petitioner Belmont Shores Mobile Estates’ unopposed Petition to Declare Mobilehome Abandoned is GRANTED.  Petitioner is awarded $9,100.00 in storage charges.

 

SERVICE: 

 

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)                 OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                                 OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b))                     OK

 

OPPOSITION:          None filed as of March 29, 2023.               [   ] Late                      [X] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of March 29, 2023.               [   ] Late                      [X] None

 

ANALYSIS:

 

I.                Background

 

On November 28, 2022, Petitioner Belmont Shores Mobile Estates (“Petitioner”) filed the instant Petition to Declare Mobile Home Abandoned (“Petition”) against Respondents Betty Allen (“Allen”) and Daniel Pettis (“Pettis”) (collectively, “Respondents”).  Pursuant to Civil Code § 798.61, Petitioner seeks a declaration that the mobilehome located at 6239 Emerald Cove Dr., Long Beach CA 90803, described as 1973 Homette, Decal Number AAM5667, Serial No. 0372743U/0372743X (“Mobilehome”) is abandoned.  (Pet. ¶ 5.)  Petitioner also seeks storage charges in the amount of $1,300.00 per month owed from July 1, 2022.  (Ibid. at ¶ 6.)

 

No opposition has been filed.  Default was entered against Defendants Allen and Pettis on March 6, 2023.  (3-6-23 Request for Entry of Default.)

 

II.              Legal Standard & Discussion

 

A.    Determination of “Abandoned Mobilehome”—Civ. Code § 798.61(a)(1)

 

            Pursuant to Civil Code § 798.61(a)(1), an “‘abandoned mobilehome’ means a mobilehome about which all of the following are true:

 

(A) It is located in a mobilehome park on a site for which no rent has been paid to the management for the preceding 60 days.

 

(B) It is unoccupied.

 

(C) A reasonable person would believe it to be abandoned.

 

(D) It is not permanently affixed to the land.”

 

            Petitioner submits the declaration of Sal Ortiz, Regional Manager for Petitioner Belmont Shores Mobile Estates located at 6230 Marina Drive, Long Beach, CA 90803 (“Park”).  (Ortiz Decl. ¶ 3.)  According to Ortiz and the California Department of Housing and Community Development, the agency responsible for licensing and titling mobilehomes, Respondents Allen and Pettis are the registered owners of the mobilehome located at 6239 Emerald Cove Dr., Long Beach CA 90803, described as 1973 Homette, Decal Number AAM5667, Serial No. 0372743U/0372743X.  (Ibid. at ¶ 4, Ex. 2.)  There are no legal owners of the mobilehome.  (Ibid.)

 

            Ortiz explains that to the best of his knowledge and belief, the Mobilehome is unoccupied and was unoccupied prior to October 11[1], 2022.  (Ibid. at ¶ 7.)  The Mobilehome is not permanently affixed to the space and is located in the Park on a site for which no rent or storage fees have been paid since July 2022, 60 days preceding the posting of a Notice of Belief of Abandonment (“Notice”) on the Mobilehome.  (Ibid. at ¶¶ 7-8.)  On October 11, 2022, the 30-day Notice was posted on the Mobilehome.  (Ibid., Ex. 1.)

 

            The Court finds that the Mobilehome falls within the Civil Code § 798.61’s definition of “abandoned.”

 

B.    Notice of Belief of Abandonment—Civ. Code § 798.61(b)

 

Civil Code § 798.61(b) requires:

 

After determining a mobilehome in a mobilehome park to be an abandoned mobilehome, the management shall post a notice of belief of abandonment on the mobilehome for not less than 30 days, and shall deposit copies of the notice in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the homeowner at the last known address and to any known registered owner, if different from the homeowner, and to any known holder of a security interest in the abandoned mobilehome.  This notice shall be mailed by registered or certified mail with a return receipt requested.”

 

On October 11, 2022, a 30-day Notice of Belief of Abandonment was posted on the Mobilehome.  (Ortiz Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. 1; 3-6-23 Proof of Service – Trevillyan Decl. ¶ 2.)  On the same day, the Notice was mailed via certified mail, return receipt requested, to Respondents at 6239 Emerald Cove Dr., Long Beach, CA 90803.  (Ortiz Decl. ¶¶ 4, 8, Ex. 2; 3-6-23 Proof of Service – Trevillyan Decl. ¶¶ 2-3, pp. 3-5.)

 

The Court finds that Petitioner has satisfied the requirements of § 798.61(b).

 

C.    Petition for Judicial Declaration—Civ. Code § 798.61(c)

 

Civil Code § 798.61(c)(1) states:

 

“Thirty or more days following posting pursuant to subdivision (b), the management may file a petition in the superior court in the county in which the mobilehome park is located, for a judicial declaration of abandonment of the mobilehome. A proceeding under this subdivision is a limited civil case. Copies of the petition shall be served upon the homeowner, any known registered owner, and any known person having a lien or security interest of record in the mobilehome by posting a copy on the mobilehome and mailing copies to those persons at their last known addresses by registered or certified mail with a return receipt requested in the United States mail, postage prepaid.” 

 

On November 28, 2022, Petitioner filed the instant Petition.  Petitioner has submitted proof that a copy of the Petition was served on Respondents Allen and Pettis by posting a copy of the Petition at 6239 Emerald Cove Dr., Long Beach, CA 90803, on December 1, 2022, and mailing the Petition to the same address via certified mail, return receipt requested on November 28, 2022.  (3-6-23 Proofs of Service by Posting.)  The envelope sent to Respondent Allen was returned as undeliverable.  (Ibid. at p. 3.) 

 

            The Court finds the service requirements of § 798.61(c) have been satisfied.

 

D.    Charges, Attorney’s Fees, and Costs

 

Civil Code section 798.61(d)(2) states:

 

“If, at the hearing, the petitioner shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the criteria for an abandoned mobilehome has been satisfied and no party establishes an interest therein at the hearing and tenders all past due rent and other charges, the court shall enter a judgment of abandonment, determine the amount of charges to which the petitioner is entitled, and award attorney's fees and costs to the petitioner.”

 

            Petitioner seeks monthly storage charges of $1,300.00 per month for seven (7) months, from July 1, 2022, through January 1, 2023.  (Ortiz Decl. ¶ 9, Ex. 3.)  The monthly charge is calculated based on the amount of rent Respondent was paying for the space at the time the Mobilehome was abandoned.  (Ibid.)  Petitioner argues that the amount requested is reasonable because a similarly sized mobilehome would incur storage charges of $77.50 per day in the City of Los Angles, totaling $2,325.00 per month.  (Ibid. at ¶ 10.)  The total amount of storage charges from July 1, 2022, through January 1, 2023, is calculated at $9,100.  (Ibid. at ¶ 11.)

 

Petitioner seeks additional attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $225.00.  (Pet. p. 3; 3-6-23 Proposed Default Judgment.)  Petitioner, however, has not provided support for the $225.00 in costs so the Court cannot award costs at this time.

 

The Court finds the storage charges requested to be reasonable.  Petitioner’s request is GRANTED. Petitioner is awarded a total of $9,100.00.

 

III.            Conclusion & Order

 

For the foregoing reasons,

 

Petitioner Belmont Shores Mobile Estates’ unopposed Petition to Declare Mobilehome Abandoned is GRANTED.  Petitioner is awarded $9,100.00 in storage charges.

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.



[1] The declaration provides inconsistent dates regarding the date of posting stating that the Notice was posted both on September 27, 2022, and October 11, 2022.  However, the Notice itself is dated October 10, 2022, thus the Court presumes that September 27, 2022, is a typographical error.