Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 21CHCV00189, Date: 2022-10-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21CHCV00189    Hearing Date: October 26, 2022    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 10-26-22

Case: 21CHCV00189

CLARIFICATION

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor, Duda Adams

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed/Defendant/Judgment Debtor, GG&C 1, LLC, et al.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion for Clarification

BACKGROUND

On March 10, 2021, Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor Duda Adams filed a complaint for forcible detainer, wrongful eviction, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. On August 16, 2021, Adams filed a verified first amended complaint for forcible detainer, wrongful eviction, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, restitution, conversion, loss of prospective economic advantage, quiet, declaratory relief, constructive trust, and adverse possession. Adams filed a notice of lis pendens on August 16, 2021 as well.

On March 15, 2022, the court entered a default judgment in favor of Adams for $1,830,723. The court also entered judgment “Quieting Title in the property located at 18834 Devonshire St., Northridge…in Plaintiff’s name...”

RULING: Granted.

Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor Duda Adams moves for “clarification of the Court Order directing the Clerk of Court to execute the Grant Deed conveying the property located at 18834 Devonshire St., Northridge…in favor of Plaintiff.” The “order” itself is the default judgment which both awarded monetary damages, as well quieting title in the identified property.

The motion comes following the rejection of the court clerk to execute the grant deed. Rather than a “clarification” of the default judgment, Adams actually seeks the appointment of an elisor or order directing the Clerk of the Court to execute all necessary documents to effectuate execution of the grant deed, thereby allowing its recording with the Los Angeles County Recorder.

A court is authorized to appoint an elisor for purposes of compelling obedience to its orders. (Code Civ. Proc., § 128, subd. (a)(4); Rayan v. Dykeman (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 1629, 1635.) An elisor is governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 262.8, which provides:

Process or orders in an action or proceeding may be executed by a person residing in the county, designated by the court, or the judge thereof, and denominated as an elisor, in the following cases:

(a) When the sheriff and coroner are both parties. 

(b) When either of these officers is a party, and the process is against the other.

(c) When either of these officers is a party, and there is a vacancy in the office of the other, or where  it appears, by affidavit, to the satisfaction of the court in which the proceeding is pending, or the judge thereof, that both of these officers are disqualified, or by reason of any bias, prejudice, or other cause would not act promptly or impartially.”

The instant case does not involve the sheriff or the coroner. Furthermore, the term “elisor” remains an inappropriate designation for the instant request. Regardless, court authority allows for the appointment of a qualified person to perform the required functions for executing on the default judgment. (Rayan v. Dykeman, supra, 224 Cal.App.3d at p. 1635 (footnote 2).) The court finds Adams is entitled to execute on the judgment and cannot otherwise obtain full relief without execution of the grant deed. The court therefore grants the Clerk of the Court with the authority to execute the grant deed in compliance with the terms of the default judgment, which may then be presented for recording.

Moving party to provide notice of the order.