Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 22CMCV00314, Date: 2024-02-01 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22CMCV00314 Hearing Date: February 1, 2024 Dept: A
22CMCV00314
Dwayne Hamilton v. Tanya Hamilton
[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE CONTEMPT AGAINST DEFENDANT,
TANYA HAMILTON
I.
BACKGROUND
The complaint alleges that Defendant,
Tanya Hamilton, assigned her interests in real property to Plaintiff in a
probate matter settling the Estate of Margie Lee Hamilton (“Estate”). Prior to
this order, the parties, who are siblings, entered into an informal verbal
agreement wherein Defendant would collect the rental proceeds from tenants for
deposit into the Estate’s account. Plaintiff alleges he discovered that
Defendant misappropriated rental income and acted as de facto landlord/owner of
the properties without Plaintiff’s knowledge. Plaintiff alleges claims for
conversion and private nuisance.
On October 31, 2022, Defendant filed a
cross-complaint against Plaintiff alleging claims for fraud, intentional and
negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, breach of contract,
and for breach of implied-in-fact contract.
II.
ARGUMENTS
Plaintiff argues that Defendant failed to
comply with two orders to return rent in the amount of $20,000. After the Court
appointed a receiver, Defendant refused to turn over the March 2023 rents of
$4,800.
In opposition, Defendant contends that
there is no order requiring Defendant to turn over rent money from the rental
properties at issue. The Court subsequently quashed the October 4, 2023, temporary
restraining order (“TRO”) motion for preliminary injunction. Plaintiff did not
cite appropriate authority that would permit this motion. Plaintiff is
misleading the Court. Defendant contends she is “in the process” of paying the
receiver the March 2023 rent. The Court should deny the request for imposition
of sanctions.
In reply, Plaintiff argues the motion is
authorized by Civil Procedure, section 1211. Defendant violated two TROs during
the period they were in effect as well as the order appointing receiver which
remains effective.
III.
DISCUSSION
“Disobedience of any lawful judgment,
order, or process of the court” is punishable by contempt. The Court determines
four issues in a contempt proceeding: "(1) the rendition of a valid order,
(2) actual knowledge of the order, (3) ability to comply, and (4) willful
disobedience." (Van
v. LanguageLine Solutions (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 73, 81.)As
the proceeding is criminal in nature, guilt must be established beyond a
reasonable doubt. (Conn
v. Superior Court (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 774, 784.)
On October 4, 2022, the Court granted
Plaintiff’s ex parte application for restraining order prohibiting Defendant
from signing any rental agreements and ordering the return to Plaintiff, all rents
collected from the real properties at issue and to return $14,400 in rent
collected. The Court ordered Defendant to deposit all rents into Plaintiff’s
personal bank account and retain records of deposits. (Mot. Ex. 1.)
However, the record reflects that on
November 22, 2022, the Court held a hearing regarding the order on preliminary
injunction which the Court denied. The Court also ordered the TRO quashed
because of Plaintiff’s procedural error. (Defendant’s RJN., Ex. A.)
Accordingly, Plaintiff has not established that the October 4 order was valid.
Plaintiff applied for a second temporary
injunction which the Hon. Sean Coen granted on December 29, 2022, directing
Plaintiff to return additional rents. (Motion Ex. 6.) However, on January 13,
2023, this Court denied the request for a preliminary injunction finding that Plaintiff
omitted facts. (Defendant’s RJN, Ex. B.)
The Court also found that the TRO expired. The order also reflects the
Court’s finding that Defendant failed to follow the Court’s orders of October
4, 2022, and December 29, 2022. (Id.)
Defendant’s counsel states his belief
that the Court’s denials of Plaintiff’s two applications for preliminary
injunction effectively quashed the December 29 TRO. (Scott Fridley Declaration,
¶ 8.) However, it appears that the December 29 TRO remained in effect until the
order to show cause hearing re Preliminary Injunction. (Defendant’s RJN, Ex.
D.) Defendant did not provide a declaration demonstrating Defendant’s inability
to comply with the December 29 TRO, which required return of rent of $1,400,
and $4,800, from the various rental properties as well as future rents.
Defendant does not dispute that on March
6, 2023, the Court appointed a receiver to take control of the real property
including the collection of the property’s income, profits, and rents. (Mot.
Ex. 3.) Defendant purportedly used the March
2023 rent to pay for property taxes. (Fridley Decl., ¶ 12, Exs. E and F.) While
counsel states that Defendant has also been undergoing financial strain owing
to the litigation of her father’s estate, Defendant did not provide her own
declaration. (Id. ¶ 11.) Using the March rent money, Defendant purportedly
made payments for insurance renewal, utility, and process service fees. (Id.
Ex. G.), Counsel declares that Defendant has also been using her personal funds
to make repairs on the rental properties. The amount of March rent owed is
$1,246.20 (Ex. H).
IV.
CONCLUSION
The Court finds that an order to show
cause re contempt is warranted with respect to the December 29, 2022, and March
6, 2023, orders. Accordingly, and pursuant to Civil
Procedure, section 1212, the Court sets an Order to Show Cause Re
Contempt for
Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to prepare
the Order to Show Cause and serve the signed Order on Defendant in compliance with
California Code of Civil Procedure section 1016-1017. (Cedars Sinai Imaging Medical Group v.
Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal. App. 4th 1281, 1286-1288.)