Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: BC696401, Date: 2024-08-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC696401    Hearing Date: August 14, 2024    Dept: 61

MARIA ELENA ESTRADA VS JUAN MONCADA ET AL

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff Maria Elena Estrada (Plaintiff) move to appoint an elisor for Defendant and Judgment Debtor Antonio Morales (Morales), to execute documents and transfers that Morales was ordered to execute to effectuate this court’s quiet title judgment. (Motion at p. 9.)

At issue here is the court's authority and reasonableness in issuing the order appointing the elisor. As used in the case at bar, consistent with its common legal meaning, an elisor is a person appointed by the court to perform functions like the execution of a deed or document. (Rayan v. Dykeman (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 1629, 1635, fn. 2, [274 Cal.Rptr. 672] (Rayan).) A court typically appoints an elisor to sign documents on behalf of a recalcitrant party in order to effectuate its judgments or orders, where the party refuses to execute such documents. (See Ibid.) We note that under Code of Civil Procedure section 262.8, “elisor” specifically means a person designated by the court to execute process or orders in an action or proceeding involving the sheriff *1021 and/or coroner. Code of Civil Procedure's use of the term is not at issue in this case.

Courts use elisors in matters like this one to enforce their orders. Under section 128, subdivision (a)(4), “[e]very court shall have the power .... [¶] ... [¶] [t]o compel obedience to its judgments, orders, and process, and to the orders of a judge out of court, in an action or proceeding pending therein.” This statute has codified the principle of “[t]he inherent power of the trial court to exercise reasonable control over litigation before it, as well as the inherent and equitable power to achieve justice and prevent misuse of processes lawfully issued....” (Venice Canals Resident Home Owners Assn. v. Superior Court (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 675, 679, [140 Cal.Rptr. 361].)  In Blueberry Properties, LLC v. Chow (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 1017, 1020–1021, the court held that the trial court did not err in “appointing the clerk of the court as an elisor to sign the escrow documents on behalf of” the defendant. (Id. at p. 1020.)

This court’s judgment of August 12, 2020, directed Defendant Morales to convey to Plaintiff any and all interest in the property on Naomi Avenue in Los Angeles that is the subject of this action. Prior to judgment, Plaintiff obtained an order to serve Morales by publication because they were unable to locate him. (Estrada Decl. ¶¶ 15–21.) Since judgment, Plaintiff is still unable to locate Morales, has not been contacted by him, and has been unable to secure his conveyance as ordered by the court. (Estrada Decl. ¶¶ 27–30.)

Because of the inability to contact Morales, Plaintiff has shown that appointment of an elisor is necessary to effectuate this court’s judgment under Code of Civil Procedure § 128, subd. (a)(4).

The motion is therefore GRANTED.