Judge: Kristin S. Escalante , Case: BC540028, Date: 2023-06-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: BC540028 Hearing Date: June 20, 2023 Dept: 24
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Hearing on Motion for Order
Amending Judgment to Conform to Post-Judgment Orders and to Correct Clerical
Errors
The
above-captioned matters are called for hearing.
The Court has
read the moving papers in the above-captioned motions and announces its
tentative rulings in open Court.
The Motion for Order Amending Judgment to Conform to
Post-Judgment Orders and to Correct Clerical Errors ID: 967149395206 filed by
Plaintiffs Jesus Naranjo and Maria Blanca Naranjo on 4/252023 is GRANTED, in
part. This order and amended judgment simply modify the pre-existing judgment.
(Code Civ. Proc., §473.)
Plaintiff is to submit an amended judgment reflecting the
court’s ruling on the Section 8 Credits as set forth below. In all other
respects the motion is granted.
Plaintiffs Jesus
Naranjo and Maria Blanca Naranjo (collectively “Plaintiffs”) move for an order
amending the judgment entered in this action on November 18, 2021, to conform
to the post-judgment orders and to correct clerical errors in the judgment.
(Notice of Mtn., at p. 2.)
On November 18,
2021, the court issued “judgment on the terms of the settlement agreement as
reflected in the Reporter’s Transcript of the court proceedings dated May 24, 2016,
and Option Agreement as incorporated therein.” (Judgement,
Nov. 18, 2021.)
On May 30,
2023, this matter came for hearing. At that time, Defendants Albert Lon Chaney
III and Kay S. Chaney (collectively “Defendants”) had not filed an opposition.
Defendants’ specially appearing attorney then represented to the court that
Defendants were in the Philippines and did not have notice of the motion until
May 21, 2023. Accordingly, the court continued the hearing. Defendants then filed
an opposition on limited grounds.
“The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms
as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding
or striking out they name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name
of a party, or a mistake in any other respect. . .The court may likewise, in
its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as my be
just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars. . .”
(Code Civ. Proc., §473, subd. (a)(1).) The court, “regardless of the lapse of
time, has inherent power to correct mistakes in its judgments or orders. [citation]
This power, however, is limited to mistakes which are not the result of an
exercise of judicial discretion.” (In re Sloan’s Estate (1963) 222 Cal.App.2d
283, 292.) “Whether an error is judicial rather than clerical depends up on
whether it was the deliberate result of judicial reasoning and determination.
If an error, mistake or omission is the result of inadvertence, but for which a
different judgment would have been rendered, the error is clerical and the
judgment may be corrected to correspond with what it would have been but for
the inadvertence. It is primarily for the trial judge to determine whether [the]
order was an inadvertence and [their] conclusion as to that question will not
be lightly set aside.” (Id at pp. 292-293 [internal citations omitted].) The
court also has “inherent power to supervise the execution of its orders, and
even modify them in ways affective only the details of their performance.”
(Vallelunga v. Gomez (1951) 102 Cal.App.2d 374, 382 [internal quotations
omitted].)
Plaintiffs request six amendments and/or corrections to the
judgment which are as follows:
1. Correction of misspelled plaintiff’s name in caption from
“NARANO” to “NARANJO.”
2. Addition of the forbearance term sheet as part of the
judgment as authorized at the February 3, 2023, hearing in this action with the
language, “The forbearance Term Sheet that was part of the original contract
and which was inadvertently omitted from the judgment is made a part of the
judgment.”
3. Addition of the following language as part of the
judgment, "The Fair Market Value of the Real Property in this matter is
$2,090.000 million dollars," as determined by the Court-appointed
appraiser.
4. Addition of the following language reflecting defendants’
Court-determined credits against the purchase price of the property as part of
the judgment, “Defendants' Credits against the Fair Market Value (“FMV”) of the
Real Property are as follows:
Option Agreement Fee Credit against FMV: $
1,000
Loan Payment to Carlos Sanchez Credit against FMV: $ 1,000
Appraisal Fee Credit against FMV: $
3,750
Security Deposit Credit against FMV: $
5,825
Payment of Personal Loans Credit against FMV: $ 17,000
Attorney Fees Credit against FMV: $100,000
Section 8 Credit against FMV: $219,4141
from the opening of escrow to the closing of escrow
Mortgage Reduction Credit against FMV: $254,242.66.
5. Addition of the following instructional language to the
judgment as discussed at the February 3, 2023, hearing, “The proceeds from the
sale of the real property shall be deposited in The Anorga Law Firm, Inc's
Trust Account and thereafter disbursed to the Plaintiffs after reduction in
legal fees and costs.”
6. Addition of the following language to the judgment
pursuant to the Court’s ruling on March 30. 2023: “Defendants to make good
faith efforts to open escrow within thirty (30) days from the date the Order is
signed; that the Defendants participate in said escrow in a good faith manner;
and purchase the Real Property and close escrow within ninety (90) days from
the date the Order is signed. If the Defendants fail to comply with the Order,
the Defendants' option to purchase the Real Property shall be immediately
canceled, and the Defendants shall immediately relinquish to Naranjo the Real
Property’s management and control.”
(Notice of Mtn. at pp. 2-3.)
The first request is a clear clerical error and the court
grants motion to amend the misspelling of Plaintiffs’ last name.
The second request refers to a document which was
inadvertently omitted from the judgment. Plaintiff attaches counsel’s
declaration. Counsel in turn attaches a copy of the transcript of a hearing on
February 3, 2023. At the hearing, the court and the parties agreed that the
forbearance terms sheet should be added to the judgment. (See Angora Decl., ¶2,
Ex. 2, at pp. 30:07-31:03.) This background demonstrates this was another
clerical error which is appropriately the subject of an amendment. The court
grants request two.
The third request is for the
addition of the appraisal amount representing the fair market value of the real
property. Plaintiffs argue the inclusion is appropriate based on the court’s
February 3, 2023, ruling. At the hearing, the court concluded that the purchase
price based on the appraisal was $2,090,000.00 (See Angora Decl., ¶2,
Ex. 2, at pp. 39:17-22; 41:05-42:07.) The request
is encompassed in the court’s “inherent power to supervise the execution of its
orders, and even modify them in ways affective only the details of their
performance.” (Vallelunga, supra, 102 Cal.App.2d at p. 382 [internal quotations
omitted].) Accordingly, the court grants request
three.
The fourth
request is to include Defendants’ credits against the fair market value of the
real property. Again, Plaintiffs argue the inclusion is appropriate based on
the court’s February 3, 2023, ruling. The credits are reflected throughout transcript
of the evidentiary hearing. (See Angora Decl., ¶2, Ex. 2, at pp. 29:15-16
[Option Agreement Fee Credit]; 37:27-38:03 [Loan Payment to Carlos Sanchez];
29:24-30:06 [Appraisal Fee Credit]; 29:08-15 [Security Deposit Credit];
92:01-05 [Payment of Personal Loans Credit]; 3:09-4:02[Attorney Fee Credit]; 88:20-89:01
[Section 8 Credit]; 27:18-29:06 [Mortgage Reduction Credit].) The request is a proper exercise of the court’s
power to exercise supervision over its judgment. (See Vallelunga, supra, 102
Cal.App.2d at p. 382 [internal quotations omitted].)
Defendant
disputes a narrower issue in the fourth request regarding what period the
Section 8 Credits run during. Plaintiff proposes the Section 8 Credits are
$219,414, “plus an additional $2,000 a month from the opening to the closing of
escrow.” (Mtn., at p. 3:06, fn. 1.) Defendants argue the additional $2,000 a
month credits should run from the date of the evidentiary hearing (Feb. 3,
2023) through the closing of escrow. (Opp., at p. 4:01-04.) At the evidentiary,
regarding the Section 8 credits the court stated:
I believe that
the - - I interpret the agreement - - the option agreement and the settlement
agreement as entitling the Chaneys to the HAP payments all the way through the
close of escrow. So I would - - and I also credit the evidence that he - - the
tentative is to credit Exhibit 18 with the amount of $219,414 and that there
would be an additional $2,000 a month through the close of escrow absent any
evidence from the Naranjos that the tenants left or something to that effect. (Angor
Decl., ¶2, Ex. 2, at pp 89:23-90:06.) Later, the court states that “The $2,000
payments from Mr. Chaney to the Plaintiffs was only going to last through the
option period, but the Section 8 payments are rents that Mr. Chaney is owed
because he’s been entitled to the rents from the property. And that’s been the
case all the way through. That’s separate.” (Angor Decl., ¶2, Ex. 2, at p. 92:10-18.)
The court’s reading of the transcript aligns with Defendants’ reading, i.e.,
the Section 8 payments would continue through the evidentiary hearing until the
close of escrow. The Section 8 credits have been something Chaney is owed “all
the way through.” (Angor Decl., ¶2, Ex. 2, at p. 92:10-18.)
Plaintiff also argues
the credits should be stopped because Section 8 issued a terminate and
abatement notice on the property on May 11, 2023. However, Plaintiff attaches a
copy of this letter to counsel declaration with no foundation to establish its
authenticity. As the court does not have sufficient evidence showing otherwise,
the Section 8 credits will run from the evidentiary hearing through the close
of escrow. Accordingly, the court grants request four with the aforementioned amendment.
The fifth
request goes to where the proceedings of the sale shall be deposited. The court
previously confirmed the funds should be deposited in the Anorga Law Firm,
Inc’s Trust Account. (See Angora Decl., ¶2, Ex. 2, at p. 96:5-12.) The request goes to the mechanism for enforcing the
judgment and are not a question of judicial reasoning. Accordingly, the court
grants request five.
Finally, the sixth
request involves the language regarding what shall occur in the event escrow is
not opened timely. This was a topic which the court raised during the February
3, 2023, evidentiary hearing which the court then ruled on in a separate motion
afterwards. (See Minute Order, Mar. 30, 2023.) Again, this involves the
parameters of effectuating the court’s judgment and is properly the subject of
the motion. The court grants request six.
Accordingly,
the motion is granted, in part as discussed above.
Moving party is directed to give notice.