Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 23STCP00104, Date: 2023-05-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCP00104     Hearing Date: May 18, 2023    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      PETITION TO RELEASE PROPERTY FROM MECHANIC’S LIEN

MOVING PARTY:   Petitioner Ajah Alvarez

RESP. PARTY:         None

PETITION FOR RELEASE OF MECHANIC’S LIEN

(Civ. Code § 8480, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Petition for Release of Mechanic’s Lien filed by Petitioner Ajah Alvarez is placed off calendar as MOOT.

SERVICE:

                        [X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)        NOT OK

                        [X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                           NOT OK

                        [X] At least 15 Days Lapsed (Civ. Code § 8486(b))                        NOT OK

                        [X] Correct Manner of Service (Civ. Code § 8486(b))            NOT OK

OPPOSITION:          None filed as of May 16, 2023.               [   ] Late                      [X] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of May 16, 2023.               [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On January 12, 2023, Petitioner Ajah Alvarez (“Petitioner”) filed the instant verified Petition for Order Releasing Property from Claim of Mechanic’s Lien (“Petition”) against Respondent Silverlake Auto Body and Paint (“Silverlake Auto”).  The Petition alleges that “Respondent has not recorded a claim of mechanics lien against the property,” but has possession of Petitioner Alvarez’s vehicle.  (Pet. ¶ 3.)

            On January 20, 2023, Petitioner filed an Ex Parte Application for Writ of Possession and Temporary Restraining Order.  The Court denied the Application and noted that it had to be filed in the ‘Writs and Receivers’ Division, per LASC Rules 2.8 and 2.9.  (1-23-23 Minute Order.)  On February 9 and 10, 2023, the Court denied two Ex Parte Applications for Writ of Possession, filed by Petitioner on February 9 and 10, 2023, respectively, in Department 85.  (2-9-23 Minute Order.)

On February 28, 2023, the Court granted Petitioner’s Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause re: Preliminary Injunction, filed on February 28, 2023, in Department 85.  (2-28-23 Minute Order.)  The OSC was scheduled for March 21, 2023.  (Ibid.)

            On March 21, 2023, the Court made the following finds.  Even though Respondent may have had a valid lien in early 2023, “the evidence before the court does not show that Silverlake preserved it.”  (3-21-23 Minute Order, p. 11.)  Currently, “Silverlake has no interest in the Vehicle, and Alvarez is likely to succeed on her request for an order releasing the Vehicle from any lien.”  (Ibid.)  However, the Court notes “that if Silverlake can show that it timely sought a lien sale, the current evidence also shows that she will be responsible for the $1,239 in repair costs that the lien asserts and storage costs up to $1250.”  (Ibid.)  Finally, the Court granted Petitioner’s application for a preliminary injunction and enjoined Silverlake from “selling, auctioning, leasing or assigning possession of the Vehicle.”  (Ibid.)

            No opposition has been filed against the Petition.

II.              Legal Standard

After a mechanic’s lien has been recorded, “[t]he owner of property or the owner of any interest in property subject to a claim of lien may petition the court for an order to release the property from the claim of lien if the claimant has not commenced an action to enforce the lien within the time provided in Section 8460.”  (Civ. Code, § 8480(a).)  A claimant must commence an action to enforce a lien within 90 days of recording the lien, otherwise, “the claim of lien expires and is unenforceable.”  (Civ. Code, § 8460(a).)  However, the 90-day time limit to commence an action to enforce a lien does not apply if there was an agreement to extend credit and a notice of that fact was recorded within 90 days after recordation of the claim of lien or more than 90 days after recordation of the claim of lien but before a purchaser or encumbrancer for value and in good faith acquires rights in the property.  (Civ. Code, § 8460(b).)

“The petitioner shall serve a copy of the petition and a notice of hearing on the claimant at least 15 days before the hearing.  Service shall be made in the same manner as service of summons, or by certified or registered mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the claimant as provided in Section 8108.”  (Civ. Code § 8486(b).)  Civil Code § 8108 provides addresses at which a respondent must be served, depending on the title of the person to be served.  For example, a claimant should be served at the address on the “claimant’s contract, preliminary notice, claim of lien, stop payment notice, or claim against a payment bond, or on the records of the Contractors' State License Board.”  (Civ. Code § 8108(e).)  The petitioner bears the burden of proving that he or she complied with service and date for hearing requirements.  (Civ. Code. § 8488(a).)

            Civil Code § 8484 requires that the petition for release order be verified by the petitioner and allege the following:

(a) The date of recordation of the claim of lien. A certified copy of the claim of lien shall be attached to the petition.

(b) The county in which the claim of lien is recorded.

(c) The book and page or series number of the place in the official records where the claim of lien is recorded.

(d) The legal description of the property subject to the claim of lien.

(e) Whether an extension of credit has been granted under Section 8460, if so to what date, and that the time for commencement of an action to enforce the lien has expired.

(f) That the owner has given the claimant notice under Section 8482 demanding that the claimant execute and record a release of the lien and that the claimant is unable or unwilling to do so or cannot with reasonable diligence be found.

(g) Whether an action to enforce the lien is pending.

(h) Whether the owner of the property or interest in the property has filed for relief in bankruptcy or there is another restraint that prevents the claimant from commencing an action to enforce the lien.

III.            Discussion

On January 12, 2023, Petitioner filed the instant Petition for Order Releasing Property from Claim of Mechanic’s Lien.  Petitioner alleges that “Respondent has not recorded a claim of mechanics lien against the property,” but has possession of Petitioner Alvarez’s vehicle.  (Pet. ¶ 3.)  Moreover, on March 21, 2023, the Court found that even though Respondent may have had a valid lien in early 2023, “the evidence before the court does not show that Silverlake preserved it.”  (3-21-23 Minute Order p. 11.)

Thus, there is no evidence presented to the Court regarding the existence of a mechanic’s lien and the Court cannot make any rulings without such evidence.

For this reason, the instant Petition is MOOT and placed calendar.

IV.           Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons,

The Petition for Release of Mechanic’s Lien filed by Petitioner Ajah Alvarez is placed off calendar as MOOT.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.