Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 22SMCV01491, Date: 2023-05-19 Tentative Ruling

The Court generally uploads tentative rulings the morning of the hearing.  Because of that, the parties cannot submit on the tentative the night before and not appear.  However, if after reviewing the tentative ruling ALL COUNSEL submit, they should tell the Court's judicial assistant when checking in and the Court will endeavor to either not hear the case in light of the submission or, if the Court believes that a hearing is still needed for some other reason, then the Court will be inclined to give priority.

In some cases, tentative rulings may be given by email the morning of the hearing rather than on the tentative ruling site.  Please check your email if you have not seen the tentative.  The email is generally sent to the persons who have signed up for a remote hearing.

For those appearing in the courtroom, the Court will provide a hard copy of the tentative ruling. 

Case Number: 22SMCV01491    Hearing Date: May 19, 2023    Dept: R

At the last hearing, the court inquired as to whether the parties were able to reach an agreement.  The contours of the agreement were that plaintiff would be allowed to sell the house on the market in an amount sufficient to generate net proceeds of at least the amount upon which the parties agreed by a date certain such that the money would be in plaintiff’s hands by that date.  The quid pro quo for defendant’s forbearance was that plaintiff would agree now to dismiss the complaint and would take no action to preclude defendant from selling the house if the payment is not timely made.  The theory is that plaintiff can get more for the property in a market sale than an auction or foreclosure sale, and that the property is worth more than the amount upon which the parties agreed, leading (hopefully) to a surplus for plaintiff.  One stumbling block according to plaintiff was that there was a tenant in the property, which frustrated plaintiff’s ability to sell.  The court is informed that the tenant has left.

The court was hopeful that the parties would be able to reach an agreement along those lines.  Defendant made no binding commitment, expressing a fear that this was just another delaying tactic and that the payment date would come and go and plaintiff would then again take steps to frustrate the sale.  Plaintiff stated that there was no such intent.  The court noted that if both parties were telling the truth, then the issue was one of drafting, not substance, and a settlement ought to be reached.  The court will inquire as to the status, but the court will not hear argument on that question.  Either a settlement has been reached or it has not (or the parties would like to continue the hearing for a very short time to allow an agreement to be papered up).

If no agreement has been reached, then the court will hear argument on the demurrer and the PI motion and issue a ruling shortly.