Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 23STCV13066, Date: 2024-10-31 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV13066 Hearing Date: October 31, 2024 Dept: 45
Hearing
date: October 31, 2024
Moving
Party: Referee Richardson Griswold
(non-party)
Responding
Party: Plaintiff Idoroenyi Usua Amanam
Motion
for an Order Resolving Claims for Compensatory Adjustments
The court
considered the moving papers and opposition.
The
motion is GRANTED IN PART.
Background
This is a
partition action. On June 7, 2023, plaintiff Idoroenyi Usua Amanam (Plaintiff)
filed this action against defendant Tatiana Melendez (Defendant). On July 11,
2023, Plaintiff filed the operative first amended complaint, alleging the cause
of action for partition (1) by sale of real property and (2) by sale of
personal property.
On April 10,
2024, the court appointed Richardson Griswold (Referee) as a referee to manage the
partition by sale of the real property located at 11648 Manchester Way, Porter
Ranch, CA 91326 (the Property). Referee was given power to determine division
of proceeds as well as offsets and reimbursements based on the claims process
outlined by the court.
On September 25,
2024, Referee filed the instant motion for an order resolving the parties’
claims for compensatory adjustments.
On October 15,
2024, Plaintiff filed a limited opposition to the motion.
To date, no
reply has been filed.
Legal
Standard
The provisions
in Code of Civil Procedure section § 873.510 et seq. provide for the sale of
property in a partition action. Section 873.520 allows for a private sale,
such as the sale supervised by a referee, when it is judged to be in the best
interest of the parties. The court can approve the final report of a
partition referee pursuant to section 873.010(b)(5).
“Every partition
action includes a final accounting according to the principles of equity for
both charges and credits upon each co-tenant's interest. Credits include
expenditures in excess of the co-tenant's fractional share for necessary
repairs, improvements that enhance the value of the property, taxes,
payments of principal and interest on mortgages, and other liens, insurance for
the common benefit, and protection and preservation of title.” (Wallace v.
Daley (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1028, 1035-1036.)
Discussion
Claims for Compensatory Adjustments
Referee
submits recommendations regarding any claims for compensatory adjustments
between the parties, including claims related to the joint ownership of the
Property and claims related to the 2016 Maserati Gran Turismo Sport with VIN ZAM45VLA9G0182114
currently in the possession of Defendant (the Vehicle). Referee recommends compensatory
adjustments as follows:
(1) $9257.68
credited to Plaintiff for attorney’s fees and costs;
(2) $22,134.31
credited to Plaintiff for improvements to the Property;
(3) $61,500
credited to Defendant for down payment toward ownership of the Property;
(4) $77,828.21
credited to Plaintiff for mortgage payments on the Property;
(5) $50,000
credited to Plaintiff for an advance during buyout negotiations;
(6) $2,781.57
credited to Plaintiff for property damage during a lockout incident between the
parties;
(7) $1,541.36
credited to Defendant for contributions to a joint bank account;
(8) $4,426.77
credited to Plaintiff for property taxes;
(9) $101,991.50
credited to Defendant for fair rental value for Plaintiff’s possession of the
property; and,
(10) $7,500
credited to Plaintiff for down payment on the Vehicle.
According to
Referee’s calculations, this totals to $8,895.69 deducted from Defendant’s
share of the sale proceeds and credited to Plaintiff.
Plaintiff’s
Limited Opposition
Plaintiff has
filed a limited opposition to Referee’s motion, lodging supplemental evidence
as permitted by Referee and requesting an additional offset of $79,528.77 based
on improvements that Plaintiff made to the property. Referee stated in his
motion that “[i]f Plaintiff is able to provide additional supporting
documentation in response to this motion, then the Referee recommends that the
Court approve additional credits to Plaintiff equal to 50% of the cost of the
claimed improvements.” (Mot., p. 11.)
Offsets
Already Confirmed
Plaintiff contends that Referee approved offsets for the items labeled
“Modern Blinds,” “Wine Cellar and Office and Fireplace
AND Wine Cellar Slab and Lighting AND Wine Cellar Storage Rack Installation,”
“Master Bathroom Slab,” “Bathroom Materials from Floor and Décor,” and
“Landscaping Permits,” totaling to an offset of $24,120.42. Plaintiff further
contends that Referee awarded only $22,134.31 as a mathematical error, instead
of the total.
Plaintiff’s
contention is inaccurate. Referee stated that he was able to verify the
following line items: “Modern Blinds,” “Wine Cellar and Office and Fireplace,”
“Master Bathroom Slab, “Bathroom Materials from Floor and Décor,” “ADT
Security,” “Bathroom Materials for Kohler,” and “Landscaping Permits,” totaling
to an offset of $22,134.31. Referee did not state that he was able to verify the
items “Wine Cellar Slab and Lighting” or “Wine Cellar Storage Rack
Installation,” which Plaintiff has combined onto the same line with “Wine Cellar
and Office and Fireplace” to increase the requested offset amount.
The court finds
that there is no mathematical error present.
Additional
Sums from Originally Submitted Evidence
a.
Bathroom Materials from Floor and
Décor
Plaintiff
contends that the payment made for the line item “Bathroom Materials from Floor
and Décor” totals to $5,254.37, but Referee awarded only 50% of $3,325.35.
Referee acknowledged in the motion that the payment made to Floor and Décor in
Plaintiff’s bank statements is greater than the $3,325.35 requested. Plaintiff
has therefore not submitted additional supporting documentation beyond that
available to Referee.
The court finds
that Plaintiff should be awarded an offset for this line item in the amount of 50%
of the payment requested, as Referee recommended.
Additional
Evidence for Partially Confirmed Claims
a.
ADT Security
Referee was only
able to confirm expenses amounting to $524.57 for the line item “ADT Security.”
Plaintiff contends that he has submitted additional evidence substantiating claimable
expenses of $11,728.10 for this line item, proffering exhibit 12 in the
opposition.
Exhibit 12 is a
retail installment sale agreement from ADT Security, signed by Plaintiff on
December 1, 2022. Plaintiff contends that Exhibit 12 contains Plaintiff’s
American Express card statement, but no such card statement is present in
Exhibit 12. Plaintiff’s provided evidence is insufficient to establish actual
payments made from Plaintiff to ADT Security.
Plaintiff has
failed to submit sufficient evidence to substantiate his request for additional
offsets for this line item.
b.
Kohler Bathroom Materials
Referee was only
able to confirm expenses in the amount of $3,853.26 for the line item “Bathroom
Materials for Kohler,” out of $5,277.05 expenses claimed. Plaintiff contends
that he has submitted additional evidence substantiating claimable expenses of
$7,341.06 for this line item, proffering exhibit 15 in the opposition.
Exhibit 15 is a
bank statement containing various expenditures, some of which were made out to
Kohler and some of which were made out to other parties. Plaintiff has stated
in his declaration that these payments were made towards the line item
“Bathroom Materials for Kohler.” These payments sum to $5,385.79.
The court finds
that Plaintiff should be credited 50% of the claimed expense, totaling $2692.90.
This is $766.27 greater than was credited by Referee.
Additional
Offsets Based on Additional Evidence
a.
Landscaping Deposit
Plaintiff
contends that he has submitted additional evidence substantiating claimable
expenses of $1,000 for this line item, proffering exhibit 1 in the opposition.
Exhibit 1
contains a confirmation email from Bank of America noting that Plaintiff sent
$1,000 to Pool Logic, as well as a bank statement containing a Zelle transfer
of $1,000 to Pool Logic. This is sufficient to establish a payment made for
landscaping deposit in the amount of $1,000.
The
court finds that Plaintiff should be credited 50% of the claimed expense,
totaling $500.
b.
Stairs Costs
Plaintiff
contends that he has submitted additional evidence substantiating claimable
expenses of $5,200 for this line item, proffering exhibit 2 in the opposition.
Exhibit 2
contains an invoice from Thomas A. Paz for fabrication and installation of
steps, nosing, and risers on three-quarter inch solid Maple material. It also
contains a bank statement containing three Zelle transfers to Thomas A. Paz,
summing to $5,200. This is sufficient to establish a payment made for stair
improvements in the amount of $5,200.
The
court finds that Plaintiff should be credited 50% of the claimed expense,
totaling $2,600.
c.
Hardwood Floors
Plaintiff
contends that he has submitted additional evidence substantiating claimable
expenses of $42,820.80 for this line item, proffering exhibit 3 in the
opposition.
Exhibit 3
contains a proposed order and estimate from Redwood Hardwood Floors for the
installation of a hardwood floor. It also contains a set of check statements
and images showing four payments made to Redwood Hardwood Floors, summing to
$42,815.80. This is sufficient to establish a payment made for hardwood floor
installation in the amount of $37,915, as originally requested.
The
court finds that Plaintiff should be credited 50% of the claimed expense,
capped at the amount originally requested, totaling $18,957.50.
d.
Kitchen Countertops
Plaintiff
contends that he has submitted additional evidence substantiating claimable
expenses of $26,600 for this line item, proffering exhibit 4 in the opposition.
Exhibit 4
contains an invoice from Cesar’s Marble and Granite for the installation of kitchen
countertops. It also contains a bank statement showing two payments made to Cesar’s
Marble and Granite, summing to $26,600. This is sufficient to establish a
payment made for hardwood floor installation in the amount of $26,000, as
originally requested.
The
court finds that Plaintiff should be credited 50% of the claimed expense, capped
at the amount originally requested, totaling $13,000.
e.
Painting Stairs
Plaintiff
contends that he has submitted additional evidence substantiating claimable
expenses of $1,250 for this line item, proffering exhibit 5 in the opposition.
Exhibit 5
contains a confirmation email from Bank of America noting that Plaintiff sent
$1,250 to Juan Painter, as well as a bank statement containing a Zelle transfer
of $1,250 to Juan Painter. This is sufficient to establish a payment made for
painting stairs in the amount of $1,250.
The
court finds that Plaintiff should be credited 50% of the claimed expense,
totaling $625.
f.
Master Closet
Plaintiff contends
that he has submitted additional evidence substantiating claimable expenses of
$27,709.20 for this line item, proffering exhibit 6 in the opposition.
Exhibit 6
contains an invoice from Closets by Design. It also contains a bank statement
showing four payments made to Closets by Design, summing to $27,709.20. This is
sufficient to establish a payment made for hardwood floor installation in the
amount of $23,201, as originally requested.
The
court finds that Plaintiff should be credited 50% of the claimed expense,
capped at the amount originally requested, totaling $11,600.50.
g.
Wine Cellar Storage Rack
Plaintiff
contends that he has submitted additional evidence substantiating claimable
expenses of $2,889.35 for this line item, proffering exhibit 9 in the
opposition.
Exhibit 9
contains a confirmation email from Paypal noting that Plaintiff sent $2,889.35
to Buoyant Wine Storage LLC, as well as a bank statement showing a Paypal
transfer of $2,889.35 to Buoyant Wine Storage LLC. This is sufficient to
establish a payment made for a wine cellar storage rack in the amount of $2,889.35.
The
court finds that Plaintiff should be credited 50% of the claimed expense,
totaling $1,444.68.
h.
Upstairs Bedroom Closet
Plaintiff
contends that he has submitted additional evidence substantiating claimable
expenses of $1,679.20 for this line item, proffering exhibit 13 in the
opposition.
Exhibit 13
contains a receipt from The Container Store listing payment of $1,679.20. It
also contains a bank statement showing a payment of $1,679.20 to The Container
Store. This is sufficient to establish a payment made for closet fixtures in
the amount of $1,206.85, as originally requested.
The
court finds that Plaintiff should be credited 50% of the claimed expense, capped
at the amount originally requested, totaling $603.43.
i.
Master and Upstairs Bathroom Labor
Plaintiff
contends that he has submitted additional evidence substantiating claimable
expenses of $19,911 for this line item, proffering exhibit 14 in the
opposition.
Exhibit 14
contains a set of five checks made out to an individual that appears to be
named Alfonso Morales, although the court had difficulty reading the check
images. The checks total to $19,911. Plaintiff stated in his declaration that
these payments were made in consideration for master and upstairs bathroom
labor This is sufficient to establish a payment made for master and upstairs
bathroom labor in the amount of $18,986, as originally requested.
The
court finds that Plaintiff should be credited 50% of the claimed expense,
capped at the amount originally requested, totaling $9,493.
j.
Property Tax Statement
Plaintiff
contends that he has submitted additional evidence substantiating claimable
expenses of $8,999.81 for payment of property taxes on July 27, 2022,
proffering exhibit 17 in the opposition.
Exhibit 17
contains an email from Los Angeles County confirming payment of property taxes
on February 17, 2022. It also contains a bank statement showing a payment of $8,661.26
to Los Angeles County TTC Pay on February 17, 2022, and a payment of $8,804.35
to Los Angeles County TTC Pay on July 27, 2022. This is sufficient to establish
a payment made for property taxes on July 27, 2022 in the amount of $8,804.35.
The
court finds that Plaintiff should be credited 50% of the claimed expense totaling
$4,402.18. This amount is in addition to the amount that Referee recommended be
credited to Plaintiff for the property tax payment made on February 17, 2022.
Conclusion
In sum, the court finds that Plaintiff is
to be credited an additional $63,992.56.
Unopposed
Offsets
The court finds
Referee’s proposed compensatory adjustments outside the scope of the limited
opposition to be well taken. The court agrees with Referee that the general
rule of apportionment of attorney’s fees in accordance with each party’s
ownership interest in the Property is appropriate. The court further agrees
with Referee that Plaintiff’s payment of maintenance and utility costs during
the period in which Plaintiff had sole possession of the Property were made for
Plaintiff’s sole benefit and should not be reimbursed, that Defendant should be
credited for payments above a 50% share of the down payment on the Property,
that Plaintiff be credited for excess mortgage payments above a 50% share, that
Plaintiff be credited for his advance payment during buyout negotiations, that
Plaintiff be credited for property damage during the lockout incident, that
Defendant be credited for the joint bank account, that Plaintiff be credited
for the property tax payment made on February 17, 2022, that Defendant be
credited for the rental value of the property during the period of Plaintiff’s
sole use, and that Plaintiff be credited for the down payment on the vehicle.
Given the lack
of opposition from either party on these issues, the Court construes the lack
of opposition from the parties as a tacit approval of the proposed compensatory
adjustments. (See Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403,
1410; C. Opposing the Motion—and Rebutting the Opposition, Cal. Prac. Guide
Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 9(I)-C, ¶¿9:105.10; see also Moulton Niguel Water
Dist. v. Colombo (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1215 [“Contentions are waived
when a party fails to support them with reasoned argument and citations to
authority. [Citation.]”)
Based on the
foregoing, the court GRANTS IN PART Referee’s motion as follows:
(1)
A total of $72,888.25, amounting to
Referee’s recommendation of $8,895.69 summed with the additional amount of
$63,992.56 based on additional evidence submitted to the court, to be deducted
from Defendant’s share of the sale proceeds of the Property and credited to
Plaintiff.
It
is so ordered.
Dated: October 31, 2024
_______________________
MEL RED RECANA
Judge of the
Superior Court