Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 21STCP02976, Date: 2023-09-14 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCP02976 Hearing Date: April 16, 2024 Dept: 26
Anderson v. Shocked
MOTION FOR ASSIGNMENT ORDER
(CCP § 708.510)
ANALYSIS:
Petitioner William P. Anderson
(“Judgment Creditor”) filed the instant Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award
against Respondent Michelle Shocked (“Judgment Debtor”). Following the hearing
on the Petition, judgment was entered in favor of Judgment Creditor in the
amount of $4,322.51 principal and $1,380.83 interest. (Judgment, filed
02/28/22.)
Judgment Creditor filed the instant
Motion for Assignment Order on June 21, 2023. The Motion came for hearing on
September 14, 2023 and was continued for further briefing. (Min. Order,
09/14/23.) Judgment Creditor filed a supplemental declaration on October 16,
2023. The Motion was originally set for hearing on November 9, 2023 and
continued with notice to November 27, 2023. (Min. Order, 11/09/23.) The hearing
on December 6, 2023, the Court again continued the matter to allow Judgment
Creditor to file supplemental papers. (Minute Order, 12/06/23.) Judgment
Creditor filed a supplemental declaration on January 25, 2024. Judgment
Creditor also filed duplicate declarations of Paul Ingles on March 22, 2024.
Judgment Debtor filed an opposition on April 5, 2024. No reply has been filed
as of date.
Discussion
Procedural Issues
Judgment Debtor argues Judgment
Creditor has failed multiple times to serve her with the original motion at
issue here and to serve her with the related and supplemental filings.
Nonetheless, Judgment Debtor opposed the instant motion on the merits. Therefore,
the Court will exercise its discretion and consider the moving papers and
opposition on the merits below.
Motion for Assignment Order
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
Section 708.510, subdivision (a), the Court may order the judgment debtor to
assign to the judgment creditor or to an appointed receiver all or part of a
right to payment due or to become due. The types of payments that can be
assigned include wages due from the federal government if not subject to a
withholding order, rents, commissions, royalties, patent or copyright payments,
and insurance policy loan value. (Code Civ. Proc., § 708.510, subd. (a).)
Relevant factors the Court may take
into consideration when making an assignment order include the judgment
debtor’s reasonable requirements if they are a natural person, payments the
judgment debtor is required to make to satisfy other judgments and wage
assignments, the amount remaining due on the judgment, and the amount to be
received in satisfaction of the right to payment that may be assigned. (Code
Civ. Proc., § 708.510, subd. (c).)
Construing all the applicable
statutes together, the “assignment order” contemplated by Code of Civil
Procedure Section 708.510, et seq. must include a court order that assigns a
right to payment outright (not simply an order directing the judgment debtor to
do so).
Judgment Creditor seeks an
assignment order for rent Judgment Debtor purportedly receives from a tenant who
leases her real property, located at 1850 Industrial Street, #709, Los Angeles,
CA, 90021 (“the Property”). (Motion, Anderson Decl. ¶ 5.) The Court previously
found that Judgment Creditor demonstrated that the judgment remains wholly
unsatisfied. (Motion, Anderson Decl. ¶¶ 2-3; Min. Order 02/07/24.) Furthermore,
Judgment Creditor submitted a grant deed and title report demonstrating that
Judgment Debtor owns the Property. (Motion, Supp. Anderson Decl., Exs. 2-3.)
However, the Court found that the documents provided by Judgment Creditor were
not authenticated and there was no
indication of where Judgment Creditor had obtained the documents or whether
they were true and correct copies. (See Evid. Code, § 1400.) Moreover, the
grant deed dated April 6, 2009 was found not have substantiated that Judgment
Debtor currently owns the Property and no additional admissible evidence was
provided to demonstrate Judgment Debtor obtains rental income from the Property
and from whom.
Specifically, the motion was
supported by the declaration of a private investigator, Jason Pontaza, who
stated that they determined that Judgment Debtor rents the Property to a person
named Sebastian Pourrat for $6,000.00 a month. (Motion, Pontaza Decl., ¶ 4.)
Pontaza further declared that Pourrat is an officer of a company called Duclot
La Vinicole, LLC but the Court found it was unclear if the rent was paid
personally by Pourrat or the company. (Id. at ¶¶ 2, 4.) As previously
ruled, the Court found that this information was inadmissible hearsay from the
private investigator. (Min. Orders, 11/27/23 and 12/06/23 [citing Evid. Code, §
1200].) Thus, Judgment Creditor was
found to not have carried their burden of proof to demonstrate that the Court
should issue an assignment order of rent Judgment Debtor purportedly receives
from the Property.
Judgment Debtor indicates that she
resides at 45 Tudor City Place, #2108, New York, NY 10017. Judgment Debtor also
indicates she was served with the summons and complaint in New York. However,
Judgment Debtor admits that she owns the Property. Moreover, Judgment Creditor
proffered the declaration of a private investigator, Paul Ingels in support of
this motion. In his declaration, Ingels’ stated that he obtained a true and
correct and certified copy of a recorded Grant Deed from the Los Angeles County
Recorder, dated August 6, 2009 and recorded on September 8, 2009, showing the
transfer of the Property to Judgment
Debtor. (Ingels Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. B.) Ingels further declared Judgment Debtor is
the current owner of the Property because his review of the records of the Los
Angeles County Records as of March 20, 2024, shows Judgment Debtor had not
transferred titled to the certified Granted Deed for August 6, 2009. (Id.
at ¶¶ 3-4.) Although Judgment Creditor has provided admissible, sufficient
evidence to support Judgment Debtor currently owns the Property, there was no
evidence proffered to substantiate that Judgment Debtor receives rental income
from the Property and from whom. Therefore, the motion is still deficient.
Conclusion
Petitioner William P. Anderson’s Motion for Assignment Order
is DENIED.
Moving party to give notice.