Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 22CMCV00214, Date: 2023-01-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22CMCV00214 Hearing Date: January 12, 2023 Dept: A
22CMCV00214
Santander Consumer USA, Inc., dba Chrysler Capital v. Meifang Yao, et al.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
I.
Background
The complaint, filed on January 8, 2022, alleges that Defendant,
Meifang Yao (Yao), purchased a vehicle from Plaintiff’s assignor pursuant to a
written contract. Plaintiff, Santander Consumer USA Inc., dba Chrysler Capital,
now has legal title to the vehicle. Yao failed to make regular monthly payments
and now owes $38,986.62. Defendant Yao transferred the vehicle to Defendants, Tan-Ing
Chou, FCC Logistics, Inc, (collectively, the Body Shop), who applied to the
California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) for approval to conduct a lien
sale, which Plaintiff has opposed. Plaintiff alleges claims for claim and
delivery of personal property and writ of possession, conversion, quiet title,
and declaratory relief.
II.
Arguments
On September 1, 2022, Plaintiff filed an application for
writ of possession of the vehicle against all Defendants. Defendant, FCC
Logistics, Inc. (FCC) opposes the application because Defendant Yao has not
been served with summons or this application. Defendant Chou was dismissed on
August 31, 2022. FCC contends it has a superior warehouse lien with the right
of auction to recover storage fees incurred by Defendant Yao. FCC has an
interest in the vehicle of $19,245. Plaintiff is required to post a bond of
twice the defendant’s interest, which is $38,490.00.
III.
LEGAL STANDARDS
To obtain a writ of possession, a plaintiff must establish
by affidavit the right to immediate possession of tangible personal property,
and that the property is being wrongfully withheld by the defendant. Code
Civ. Proc., § 512.010. The application shall be signed under oath,
show the basis of plaintiff’s claim, the written instrument upon which it is
based, that the property is being wrongfully detained, by whom, in what manner,
and the reason for its detention. Code
Civ. Proc., § 512.010, subd. (b).
A plaintiff must show the probable validity of the claim
to possession of the property. A claim has “probable validity where it is more
likely than not that plaintiff will obtain a judgment against the defendant on
that claim.” Code
Civ. Proc., § 512.090.
The application for writ of possession must include “[a]
statement, according to the best knowledge, information, and belief of the
plaintiff, of the location of the property and, if the property, or some part
of it, is within a private place which may have to be entered to take
possession, a showing that there is probable cause to believe that such
property is located there.” Code
Civ. Proc., § 512.010 subd.
(b)(4).
IV.
Discussion
While Plaintiff served this application on FCC, there is
no indication in the Court’s file that Plaintiff served Defendant Yao with the
summons and complaint or the application. Plaintiff has not met its burden of
showing probable validity of the claim to possession of the property. The lease
agreement is not legible. It does not clearly identify the lessor, or any
record of assignment of the contract to Plaintiff. Declaration of Felicia
Jaimes, (Ex. A). Defendant’s evidentiary objection #3 is sustained.
The Certificate of Title identifies “CCAP Auto Lease, LTD”
as the lienholder and lessor (Ex. B). Defendant’s objection *3 is sustained. There
is no declaration or other evidence showing title to Santander Consumer USA
Inc., dba Chrysler Capital. Plaintiff contends that upon default, Plaintiff has
the right to accelerate and recover the property, which cannot be determined
because the lease agreement is not legible. Jaimes Declaration ¶ 7. Objection #8
is sustained. Plaintiff did not submit
any evidence of the amounts purportedly due and owing on the lease agreement.
Jaimes declaration, ¶ 8. Accordingly, Defendant’s objection #4 is sustained.
The amount of the undertaking "shall be in an amount
not less than twice the value of the defendant's interest in the property
or in a greater amount. The value of the defendant's interest in the property
is determined by the market value of the property less the amount due and owing
on any conditional sales contract or security agreement and all liens and
encumbrances on the property, and other factors necessary to determine the
defendant's interest in the property." Code
Civ. Proc., § 515.010, subd. (a).
Plaintiff provides a copy of the Kelley Blue Book value
for the vehicle which reflects a lending value of $31,264. Jaimes Declaration,
Ex. C, .pdf page 17. Defendant’s objection #4 is sustained as there is no
foundation for fair market value and the document is not supported by a person
with personal knowledge. It is also stale, as it bears a report date of August
26, 2021.
Without a substantiated fair market value and
a discussion of either Yao’s or FCC’s interest in the vehicle, substantiated by
evidence, the Court cannot determine whether Defendants have any interest in
the equipment sufficient to require Plaintiff to post an undertaking and in
what amount. Plaintiff does not discuss the requirement for an undertaking. Nor
has Plaintiff established that FCC’s retention of the vehicle is wrongful given
FCC’s purported warehouse lien. Declaration of Jeremy Wong, Ex. A-B.
All remaining objections are overruled.
V.
CONCLUSION
Based on the procedural and substantive
defects identified above, the application is DENIED.