Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: BC661702, Date: 2023-03-23 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: BC661702 Hearing Date: March 23, 2023 Dept: 1
BC661702 LAZBEN
INVESTMENT CO VS LAWRENCE M DEUTSCH
Defendants Lawrence Deutsch Lawrence Deutsch, Jacob
Deutsch, Jonah Deutsch, Aleksander Deutsch, and Ester Deutsch’s Motion for
Order Fixing Amount of Appeal Bond Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 917.4
TENTATIVE RULING:
Motion for Order Fixing Amount of Appeal Bond Pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure § 917.4 shall be GRANTED, in part.
The Court sets the bond amount at $3,767,390.24.
Background
On May 18, 2017, Plaintiff Lazben Investment Co.
filed a complaint against Lawrence M. Deutsch.
On August 17, 2018, Intervenor Andrew M. Deutsch
filed a complaint in intervention against Lawrence M. Deutsch alleging eight
causes of action: (1) expulsion from partnership, (2) breach of contract, (3)
breach of covenant of good faith and faith dealing, (4) breach of fiduciary
duty of care, (5) breach of fiduciary duty of loyalty, (6) accounting, (7)
unjust enrichment, and (8) declaratory relief.
On October 31, 2018, Lawrence Deutsch filed a cross-complaint
against Cross-Defendants Lazben Investment Co., Naftali Deutsch, Benjamin A.
Deutsch, Andrew M. Deutsch, Zachary I. Deutsch, Bookkeepers Unlimited Inc.,
Casa Lago, LLC, and All Persons Unknown, claiming any legal or equitable right,
title, estate, lien, or interest in the property described in the
cross-complaint adverse to Lawrence Deutsch’s Title, or any cloud on Lawrence
Deutsch’s title thereto.
On July 19, 2019, Cross-Defendant and
Cross-Complainant Zachary Deutsch filed a cross-complaint against
cross-defendants Lawrence M. Deutsch, Deborah Deutsch, Jacob Deutsch,
Aleksander Deutsch, Esther Deutsch, and Jane Roe for (1) expulsion from
partnership, (2) breach of written partnership agreement, (3) breach of implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (4) breach of fiduciary duty of care,
(5) breach of fiduciary duty of loyalty, (6) accounting, (7) slander of
title, (8) slander of title, (9) unjust enrichment, (10) ejectment, (11)
declaratory relief, (12) conversion, (13) constructive trust and (14)
conversion.
On April 2, 2019, Plaintiff filed the Second
Amended Complaint against Lawrence M. Deutsch, Deborah Deutsch, Jacob Deutsch,
Aleksander Deutsch, Esther Deutsch, Benjamin A. Deutsch and Andrew M. Deutsch,
as trustees of the E.S.D. - Lawrence M. Deutsch Trust UAD 12/17/73; Benjamin A.
Deutsch And Andrew M. Deutsch, as trustees of the N.D - L.M. Deutsch Trust UAD
12/17/73; Lawrence M. Deutsch and Andrew M. Deutsch as trustees of the
E.S.D.-Benjamin A. Deutsch Trust UAD 12/17/73, and the N.D -B.A. Deutsch Trust
UAD 12/17/73; and all persons unknown, claiming any legal or equitable right,
title, estate, lien, or interest in the property. The SAC asserted causes of
action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of covenant of good faith and
fair dealing; (3) breach of fiduciary duty; (4) expulsion from partnership; (5)
conversion; (6) quiet title to the 2565 Benedict Canyon property; (7) quiet
title to parcel 2 property; (8) ejectment; (9) declaratory relief as to
ownership and possession of 2565 Benedict Canyon property; (10) declaratory
relief as to ownership and possession of parcel 2 property; (11) constructive
trust; (12) unjust enrichment; and (13) accounting.
On
July 8, 2019, the Court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining Lawrence M.
Deutsch, Jacob Deutsch, and Aleksander Deutsch, and all those acting in concert
or participation with them, from interfering with or preventing Lazben from
having full and unimpeded access to the 2565 Benedict Canyon property, and from
obtaining Certificates of Occupancy or using or occupying any building or
structure that does not have a Certificate of Occupancy. On November 22, 2019,
the Court entered the parties’ stipulated order to dissolve the injunction upon
certain conditions.
On
November 5, 2019, Lawrence Deutsch filed his Second Amended Cross-Complaint
asserting causes of action for: (1) quiet title, (2) declaratory relief as to
title, (3) constructive trust, (4) slander of title, (5) judicial dissolution,
(6) accounting, (7) breach of contract, (8) breach of fiduciary duty, (9)
intentional interference with contractual relations, (10) intentional
interference with prospective economic advantage, (11) receivership, (12)
fraud, (13) expulsion from partnership (Naftali Deutsch), (14) expulsion from
partnership (Benjamin Deutsch), (15) expulsion from partnership (Andrew
Deutsch), and (16) damages from ultra vires acts.
On January 15, 2020, the parties to
this action reached a Settlement Agreement, Agreement to Arbitrate, and Release
of Claims, which would disperse of Plaintiff’s property.
On October 7, 2021, the Court issued an
order reinstating the July 8, 2019 preliminary injunction and ordered Lawrence M. Deutsch “to turn
over to Lazben Investment Co. (“Lazben”) all documents relating to renting or
otherwise using the 2565 Benedict Canyon Property or any portion thereof and to
turn over all proceeds received from renting or otherwise using the 2565
Benedict Canyon Property or any portion thereof, which were obtained in
violation of the Court’s November 22, 2019 Order, within five (5) days.”
On November 1, 2022, the Court granted
Lazben’s Ex Parte Application for (1) a Temporary Restraining Order and OSC re
Preliminary Injunction; and (2) an Order Specially Setting for Hearing Lazben's
Motion (1) Expanding 10/7/2021 Order, and (2) Authorizing Sale of Property. On December
1, 2022, the Court issued its ruling on submitted matter granting Plaintiff’s
request for injunctive relief and entered a counsel prepared order on December
22, 2022. The Court’s order enjoined Defendants
Lawrence, Jacob, Aleksander, Jonah, and Esther, and each of them, and their
respective agents, servants, employees, or representatives, and all persons or
entities acting under or in participation or concert with them, . . . from:
a. renting, leasing, or licensing all
or any portion of the real property located at 2565 Benedict Canyon Drive, Los
Angeles, California (the “2565 Benedict Canyon Property”) to third parties for
any event or activity other than residential occupancy;
b. entering into any contracts or
agreements for the use of the 2565 Benedict Canyon Property for any event or
activity other than residential occupancy;
c. receiving or accepting any payment
or remuneration for the use of the 2565 Benedict Canyon Property for any event
or activity other than residential occupancy; and/or
d. permitting or allowing the use of
the 2565 Benedict Canyon Property for any event or activity other than
residential occupancy.
The order also authorized Plaintiff to
encumber or sell the property to “i. Satisfy the outstanding balance on the
mortgage loan from Preferred Bank to Lazben secured by the 2565 Benedict Canyon
Property in the amount of $2,187,173.71; ii. Pay delinquent property taxes on
the 2565 Benedict Canyon Property in an amount in excess of $400,000; and iii.
Pay for fire and liability insurance on the 2565 Benedict Canyon Property.”
Defendants and Cross-Complainants, and
Cross-Defendants Lawrence Deutsch Lawrence Deutsch, Jacob Deutsch, Jonah
Deutsch, Aleksander Deutsch, and Ester Deutsch filed a Notice of Appeal of this
order.
On February
24, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief and
issued an order “enjoining Defendants and their respective agents, servants,
employees or representatives, and all persons or entities acting under or in
participation or concert with them, from obstructing or interfering in any way
with Lazben’s and its agents’ access to the real property located at 2565
Benedict Canyon Drive, Beverly Hills, California (the ‘2565 Benedict Canyon
Property’) for the purpose of touring, inspecting, photographing, preparing and
distributing marketing materials for, listing for sale, and showing to
prospective purchasers, the 2565 Benedict Canyon Property.”
Motion
On February
6, 2023, Defendants and
Cross-Complainants, and Cross-Defendants Lawrence Deutsch Lawrence Deutsch,
Jacob Deutsch, Jonah Deutsch, Aleksander Deutsch, and Ester Deutsch
(hereinafter “Movants”) filed the instant motion pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure section 917.4 requesting that the Court set the amount of their
appeal bond in the amount of $467,047.40.
Opposition
In
opposition, Plaintiff contends the Court’s December 22, 2022 order is not
appealable and the bond amount should include the equity held in the property,
the outstanding liens against the property, all outstanding property taxes, and
the reasonable rental value of the property. Plaintiff also contends Movants
failed to properly calculate insurance costs.
Reply
In reply,
Movants argue the appealability of the Court’s order is immaterial to their
motion, the bond amount should not include the claimed equity in the property,
Plaintiff miscalculated the state tax liens, and Plaintiff failed to adequately
evidence its asserted values for the insurance and rental value.
Movants
impermissibly cite an unpublished opinion in their reply. (Reply at 3:16-17.)
The Court disregards the citation. (Cal. R. Ct., 8.1115; Aguirre v. Amscan
Holdings, Inc. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1290, 1299 n.5 (“Rule 8.1115 of the
California Rules of Court prohibits the citation of unpublished opinions of
California state courts, with certain limited exceptions. (Cal. Rules of Court,
rule 8.1115(a).)
Supplemental
Briefing
On March 2,
2023, the Court issued an order continuing the hearing on the instant motion to
March 23, 2023 and providing “[s]upplemental briefs are to be filed and served
by 3/9/2023. Any responses are to be filed and served by 3/16/2023.”
On March 9,
2023, Plaintiff Lazben Investments filed a supplemental brief, a request for
judicial notice, and three declarations.
Movants did
not file a supplemental brief by the March 9, 2023 deadline, but did file a
timely response on March 16, 2023 with supporting declarations.
Judicial
Notice
Plaintiff
requests the Court take judicial notice of state tax liens, federal tax liens,
and mechanics liens recorded against the property as well as the Statement of
Information for JD Construction, Inc. on file with the Secretary of State. In
the supplemental brief, Plaintiff requests the Court take judicial notice of a
document from the Los Angeles County Assessor Portal and a Notice of Tax Lien
filed by the Franchise Tax Board. These requests are GRANTED as to their
existence and legal effect. (Evid. Code §§ 452(c); 452(h).)
Plaintiff’s
Evidentiary Objections
Plaintiff’s
objections to paragraph 6, 7, and Exhibit B are SUSTAINED. The remaining
objections are OVERRULED.
Movants’
Evidentiary Objections
Movants’
objection is SUSTAINED.
Motion to Set Appellate
Bond
Standard
Code of Civil Procedure section 917.4
provides: “The perfecting of an appeal shall not stay enforcement of the
judgment or order in the trial court if the judgment or order appealed from
directs the sale, conveyance or delivery of possession of real property which
is in the possession or control of the appellant or the party ordered to sell,
convey or deliver possession of the property, unless an undertaking in a sum
fixed by the trial court is given that the appellant or party ordered to sell,
convey or deliver possession of the property will not commit or suffer to be
committed any waste thereon and that if the judgment or order appealed from is
affirmed, or the appeal is withdrawn or dismissed, the appellant shall pay the
damage suffered by the waste and the value of the use and occupancy of the
property, or the part of it as to which the judgment or order is affirmed, from
the time of the taking of the appeal until the delivery of the possession of
the property. If the judgment or order directs the sale of mortgaged real
property and the payment of any deficiency, the undertaking shall also provide
for the payment of any deficiency.”
Section 917.4 “requires an undertaking
to the effect that appellant will not commit waste, and, if the judgment is
affirmed, that he will pay the value of the use and occupation of the property
during the pendency of the appeal. While it is the function of the trial judge
to fix the size of the appeal bond, this discretion must be exercised in a
manner compatible with the potential injury which respondents might suffer
during the period of appeal.” (Vangel v. Vangel (1953) 116 Cal.App.2d
615, 632.) “Section 917.4, . . . requires an undertaking to insure that ‘the
Appellant or party ordered to sell, convey or deliver possession of such
property’ will not commit waste.” (Estate of Murphy (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d
564, 568.)
This Court Does Not
Determine the Appealability of the Order
In opposition, Plaintiff contends the
December 22, 2022 order is not an appealable order. (Opp. at 10:3-11:22.)
However, the appealability of an order is a jurisdictional question for the
Court of Appeal, not this Court. (See generally Marsh v. Mountain Zephyr,
Inc. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 289, 297 (“The appealability of the judgment or
order is jurisdictional and an attempt to appeal from a nonappealable judgment or order will
ordinarily be dismissed.”); Chapman v. Tarentola (1960) 187 Cal.App.2d
22, 25 (“It is the duty of an Appellate Court on its own motion to dismiss an
appeal from an order which is not appealable.”); In re Anna S. (2010)
180 Cal.App.4th 1489, 1499 (“Generally the filing of a notice of appeal
deprives the trial court of jurisdiction of the cause and vests jurisdiction
with the appellate court until the reviewing court issues a remittitur.”).)
Plaintiff argues “pursuant to Code of
Civil Procedure § 916(a), ‘perfecting an appeal’ is a condition precedent to a
stay pending appeal. Here, Defendants have purported to appeal a non-appealable
order. As such, Defendants have not ‘perfected an appeal’ and are not entitled
to a stay of the December 22, 2022 Order notwithstanding their willingness to
post bond in an amount set by the trial court.” (Opp. at 11:18-22.) Plaintiff’s
argument is contrary to California law. “[A]n appeal is perfected when the
notice of appeal is filed.” (Kroger Co.
v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 952, 959.) Movants
filed a Notice of Appeal and therefore have perfected their appeal within the
meaning of the relevant statutes. Movants are therefore entitled to request
that this Court set the appropriate bond amount. (Code Civ. Proc. § 917.4.)
In their supplemental brief, Plaintiff
contends Defendants’ appeal “was nothing more than to further delay
implementation of the parties’ settlement of this matter,” and the motion would
be rendered moot if the appeal is dismissed. (Pltf. Supp. Br. at 5:7-10.)
However, there is no evidence that the appeal has been dismissed and
Plaintiff’s speculation regarding Defendants’ motives is irrelevant to the
issues presented here.
Bond Amount
In their initial motion, Movants
contend the appropriate bond amount is $467,047.40. (Mot. at 4:18, 9:22,
10:11.) As argued by Plaintiffs in opposition, Movants “do not explain the
underlying calculations supporting this number.” (Opp. at 17:24.) In reply,
Movants contend they “included [the following] in their Calculation of an
appeal bond:
-
Monthly
mortgage payments for 18 months = $312,522.84;
-
Monthly
cost for landscaping & gardening for 18 months = $90,945.00;
-
Monthly
cost for water and power for 18 months = $15,639.12; and
-
Monthly
cost for housekeeping for 18 months = $42,570.00.”
(Reply
at 4:10-16.) These numbers total $461,676.96. In opposition, Plaintiff requests
the Court set the bond at $42,354,478.20 consisting of the following:
-
$40
million of equity in the Property at risk;
-
$558,140.23
for unpaid property taxes for the Property;
-
$785,661.02
for Lawrence’s outstanding personal liens;
-
$1,010,676.96
for 18 months of Carrying Expenses; and
-
$900,000
for 18 months of the reasonable rental value of the Property.
(Opp.
at 19:9-18.)
After
reviewing Plaintiff’s opposition, Movants contend “the highest amount [they]
should be required to post an appeal bond should be in the amount of
$1,866,908.67” consisting of:
-
$485,506.92
for 18 months of Carrying Expenses;
-
$558,140.23
for outstanding property taxes on the Property;
-
$681,738.68
for outstanding personal liens; and
-
$141,522.84
for 18 months of the reasonable rental value of the Property.
(Reply
at 6:23-7:3.)
As
to the bond amount, Movants and Plaintiff disagree regarding the value of the
insurance premiums as part of the Carrying Expenses, (Reply at 4:17-5:5), the
total liens on the property, (Id. at 5:7-9), the potential monthly rental
income for the property, (Id. at 5:17-6:3), and whether the $40 million in
equity should be considered. (Id. at 6:5-22.) Movants suggested, and Plaintiff
did not dispute, an 18-month duration of the appeal to serve as the basis for
the bond calculation. The Court finds this reasonable.
Movants
contend the annual insurance premiums on the property are $15,886.65. (Deutsch
Decl. ¶ 6 (“Preferred Bank, the Property’s insurance provider, has informed me
that the annual premiums for homeowner’s insurance coverage on the Property are
$15,886.65.”).) The Court sustained Plaintiff’s objection to this statement on
hearsay grounds. Plaintiff contends Preferred Bank is the lender, not an
insurance provider, and it purchased forced added insurance solely to cover its
principal. (Bolstad Decl. ¶¶ 21-23, Ex. J.) Accordingly, “the bank, at the
expense of Lazben, insures its potential loss, but does not insure Lazben or
its general partners.” (Id. ¶ 23.) Plaintiff’s calculation includes insurance
of $366,000.00. (Opp. at 14:3-8.) However, Plaintiff’s calculation is supported
by the admitted “guesswork” of an insurance broker without evidence or support.
(Goodman Decl. Ex. A.)
In
support of its supplemental brief, Plaintiff provides a supplemental
declaration from insurance broker Dena Goodman who attaches insurance quotes
from June 30, 2021 and July 29, 2022. (Goodman Supp. Decl. ¶¶ 2-5, Ex. A-C.) As
noted by Defendants, these quotes do not provide evidence of the current value
of insurance coverage for the property. (Def. Supp. Br. at 6:12-22.) As neither
party has provided sufficient evidence regarding the claimed insurance and
accuse each other of being responsible for but not paying the insurance, the
Court shall not include any value for insurance in the calculation, which the
parties’ agreed upon carrying expenses, i.e. monthly maintenance costs and
monthly mortgage payments, to $461,676.96.
As
to the liens against the property, Plaintiff’s opposition contends the State of
California record[ed] multiple tax liens against the Property amounting to $329,847.40,
before the accrual of interest and penalties” due to Lawrence Deutsch’s failure
to pay personal income taxes. (Opp. at 14:27-15:4.) In reply, Movants contend
the state tax liens total $225,925.06, but does not contest the amount of the
other liens identified by Plaintiff. (Reply at 5:7-9.) Plaintiff’s counsel
states “True and correct copies of state tax liens recorded against the
Property are attached hereto as Exhibit M.” (Bolstad Decl. ¶ 25.) Exhibit M
contains four Notices of State Tax Lien in the amounts of $50,344.05,
$103,261.18, $22,068.97, and $50,250.86. (Id. Ex. M.) The sum of these four
liens is $225,925.06 as stated by Movants. In its supplemental briefing,
Plaintiff provides evidence that the state tax liens actually total $366,839.43.
(Supp. Bolstad Decl. Ex. J.) Movants do not contest this amount in their
response. Accordingly, the Court shall use $366,839.43 as the state tax lien
amount.
Movants
contend the bond should include rental income of “$7,862.38 per month, i.e., is
the difference of the monthly mortgage payments [$17,362.38] and the monthly
rental income [$9,500.00].” (Mo. at 9:10-16.) The $9,500.00 monthly rental
income is solely for the “lower house” on the property. (Deutsch Decl. Ex. E.)
The Court finds no basis for this calculation to serve as the “value of the use
and occupancy of the property” under Section 917.4. The Court agrees with
Plaintiff that the use and occupancy value of the property can be established
by its reasonable market rental rate, which is not approximated by subtracting
the mortgage payments from the amount obtained by the rental of only the “lower
house.”
In
opposition, Plaintiff provides a printout purportedly from the website Zillow
to contend the rental value should be no less than $50,000.00 per month. (Opp.
at 18:15-20; Bolstad Decl. Ex. Q.) The Court sustained Movants’ objection to
this document, which is also an incomplete copy of the website it purports to
represent and indicates the property is 2,338 square feet. Plaintiff’s memorandum
of points and authorities indicates that the lower house is “approximately
4,000 square feet,” (Opp. at 18:15), and the main building is a “25,000 square
foot house.” (Opp. at 17:26.) However, neither party initially provided
evidence of the square footage of either building. (Cole v. Town of Los Gatos (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 749, 767 n.8 (“It
goes without saying that statements in a memorandum of points and authorities
are not evidence.”).)
Plaintiff
provides the supplemental declaration of Naftali Deutsch who attests that the
“lower house” or “small house” is approximately 2,338 square feet and the main
house is approximately 24,000 square feet. (Supp. N. Deutsch Decl. ¶¶ 4-6. See
also Supp. Bolstad Decl. ¶ 12 (“the larger home, located at the end of the winding
access road off of Benedict Canyon Drive, is 24,000 square feet.”).) Movants
appear to agree that the main house is 24,000 square feet. (Def. Supp. Br. at
4:5-6.) However, Movants provide the supplemental declaration of Lawrence
Deutsch who states “[t]he small house on the 2565 Property is approximately
3,000 square feet.” (Supp. L. Deutsch Decl. ¶ 6.) The Court finds Naftali
Deutsch’s declaration more persuasive as it is specific and based upon the
purchase of the property. There is no evidence the square footage of the small
or lower house has increased. Accordingly, the price per square foot rental
value of the small or lower house is $4.06. Plaintiff argues the price per
square foot of the main house should be increased by “at least $1” due to the
“the massive difference in the amenities and value of the Large House relative
to the Small House.” (Pltf. Supp. Br. at 6:1-3.) However, Plaintiff’s request
is speculative and unsupported. Applying a $4.06 per square foot market rate
for use and occupancy of the main house, the monthly rate is $97,440.00.
Accordingly, applicable monthly rate for both properties is $106,940.00 with a
total after 18 months of $1,924,920.00.
Plaintiff
also contends the bond amount should include $40 million in equity. (Opp. at
5:17, 11:23-12:25, 17:10-17.) Plaintiff cites no authority in support of this
request and does not adequately evidence that the entire equity of the property
is reasonably at risk during the pendency of the appeal. Plaintiff’s primary
concern regarding the claimed equity appears to be a foreclosure sale. (Opp. at
5:17-18 (“the potential loss of the $40 million in equity in the Property
resulting from a non-judicial foreclosure of the outstanding mortgage loan”);
Opp. at 12:13-14 (“the potential injury to Lazben and its general partners is
catastrophic—the foreclosure of the Property and the loss of equity in a $40
million property.”): Opp. at 16:5-8 (“there is a substantial risk that Lawrence
will not pay off the balance of the loan as he agreed to do in the Settlement
Agreement and Term Sheet, resulting in the foreclosure and loss of the
Property. Such a loss will be catastrophic to Lazben, as Lazben will lose at
least $40 million worth of equity.”).) However, it is not reasonable to
conclude a foreclosure sale would result in the total loss of all equity on the
property. Moreover, Plaintiff’s claimed equity does not appear to fall within
the bond contemplated by Code of Civil Procedure section 917.4.
In
its supplemental briefing, Plaintiff contends for the first time that the
entire outstanding mortgage balance should be included in the bond amount.
(Pltf. Supp. Br. at 6:15-7:7.) Plaintiff does not cite any authority in support
of this new position. Plaintiff conceded in its opposition that carrying
expenses for the property included “Monthly mortgage payments of $17,362.38
(Lawrence Decl., ¶ 8) for 18 months, totaling $312,522.84.” (Opp. at 18:21-25.)
Accordingly, the Court shall not include the claimed equity or outstanding
mortgage balance in the calculation.
Plaintiff
also contends for the first time that accruing property taxes of $229,262.57
should be included in the bond amount. (Pltf. Supp. Br. at 7:9-15.) Plaintiff
did not include any authority or citation to evidence in this portion of the
supplemental brief. Plaintiff states “Defendants concede that the outstanding
property taxes on the Property in the amount of $558,140.23 should be included
in the amount of the appeal bond” citing the reply. (Pltf. Supp. Br. at
7:9-11.) Plaintiff seeks to add “(1) April 10, 2023 – $76,420.86; (2) December
10, 2023 – $76,420.85; and April 10, 2024 – $76,420.86, for a total amount to
accrue during appeal of $229,262.57.” (Id. at 7:12-13.) In response, Movants
contend the future tax burden is uncertain. (Def. Supp. Br. at 5:20-6:11.)
Plaintiff’s
new calculation is duplicative, in part, and unsupported, in part. The original
$558,140.23 claimed by Plaintiff in the opposition, and conceded by Movants,
was supported by Exhibit K to the Bolstad Declaration. (Opp. at 14:9-24.) As
demonstrated in Exhibit K, the $558,140.23 consists of the $397,656.44
redemption amount for 2021, the $88,062.94 balance due by December 12, 2022 for
“Installment 1,” and the $76,420.85 balance due by April 10, 2023 for “Installment
2.” (Bolstad Decl. Ex. K.) Accordingly, the parties’ agreed upon property tax
value of $558,140.23 included the April 10, 2023 payment Plaintiff seeks to
add, which is duplicative. Plaintiff does not provide any evidence establishing
the future tax burden for the property. Accordingly, the Court shall not
increase the amount agreed upon as the parties’ property taxes to be included
in the bond amount.
Based
upon the foregoing, the Court sets the bond amount at $3,767,390.24, based upon
$461,676.96 for 18 months of carrying expenses, $558,140.23 in outstanding
property taxes on the Property, $822,653.05 for outstanding personal liens, and
$1,924,920.00 for the rental value of the Property for 18 months.