Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 22CHCV00005, Date: 2023-11-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV00005    Hearing Date: January 3, 2024    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 1-3-24

Case #22CHCV00005

Trial Date: Concluded

TERMINATE STAY

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Macaria Beltran, et al.

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, Patrick Graham

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Terminate Stay

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On January 4, 2022, Plaintiff Macaria Beltran, trustee of the MCB Trust, filed a complaint for unlawful detainer based on an alleged breach of a month to month residential lease agreement in November 2021.

RULING: Denied.

Plaintiff Macaria Beltran moves to terminate the December 30, 2022, ordered stay, due to the failure to comply with the court order requiring payment of the water bill on the property. Plaintiff represents the unpaid Los Angeles Department of Water and Power bill now totals $28,510.19, with a risk of a terminated account and other unspecified “legal consequences.” The stay perpetuates the potential for additional harm to Plaintiff due to the outstanding bills.

Defendant Patrick Graham in opposition challenges any showing for a basis of relief and contends the motion misrepresents the order of the court in conditionally granting the stay pending payment of rent and the water bill.

The court electronic filing system shows no reply at the time of the tentative ruling publication cutoff.

On August 19, 2022, the court held a bench trial and ruled in favor of plaintiff landlord. The court entered judgment on September 12, 2022, which provides for possession within 30 days of the order, and the return of keys, clickers, and gate operating systems. The writ of possession was entered on September 29, 2022.

On November 8, 2022, the court denied Defendant’s motion for relief from forfeiture. Defendant filed an appeal on November 10, 2022. On November 22, 2022, the court stayed any lockout from the property pending a hearing on a motion to stay. On December 30, 2022, the court granted the stay pending appeal on condition that defendant continue to pay the $5,000 monthly rent. On July 10, 2023, the court heard the ex parte motion to terminate the stay, whereby the court left the stay in place on condition that defendant pay $10,000 no later than July 21, 2023, and $7,500/month rent due on the 20^th of each month, plus the entire outstanding water bill.

The court granted the stay under the applicable standard: “An appeal taken by the defendant shall not automatically stay proceedings upon the judgment. Petition for stay of the judgment pending appeal shall first be directed to the judge before whom it was rendered. Stay of judgment shall be granted when the court finds that the moving party will suffer extreme hardship in the absence of a stay and that the nonmoving party will not be irreparably injured by its issuance. If the stay is denied by the trial court, the defendant may forthwith file a petition for an extraordinary writ with the appropriate appeals court. If the trial or appellate court stays enforcement of the judgment, the court may condition the stay on whatever conditions the court deems just, but in any case it shall order the payment of the reasonable monthly rental value to the court monthly in advance as rent would otherwise become due as a condition of issuing the stay of enforcement. ...”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1176, subd. (a).)

On November 30, 2023, the court denied Graham’s motion for reconsideration of the underlying July 10, 2023, order establishing conditions for the stay. In ruling on the prior motion for reconsideration and the justification for Graham failing to pay any amount towards the water bill ordered by the court as a condition for the stay, the court noted the lack of any address for establishment of the dates of the tenancy, and the failure to even offer payment for a portion of the bill during the clear period of the tenancy. Graham only acknowledged the preexisting bill for $2,337.44 at the time of the tenancy in the reply, but otherwise offered no sound rationale to the court excusing the failure to pay the remaining $28,072.20 balance admittedly accrued during the tenancy, except to offer argument on grounds that Los Angeles City Department of Water and Power refuses to transfer the bill into Defendant’s name due to the prior outstanding bill.

The court accepted the representation of the refusal to transfer the bill, but still ordered Graham to address the failure to still arrange for payment as a third party, or present proof of the inability to pay the bill as a third party through certified Los Angeles Department of Water and Power documentation. The court deferred consideration of the challenged order for payment of the water bill and termination of the stay, until the instant hearing.

The purpose of the prior order was to obtain information regarding responsibility. The opposition to the motion lacks address of the criteria ordered by the court, and instead now offers yet another new argument regarding apportionment based on the inability to determine the “proportionate” share of the water bill. The opposition relies on a challenged overstatement of water costs presented as the foundation for the damages calculation at trial. Graham additionally states that a multi-family meter and water leaks in the house interfere with the ability to determine an accurate partition of responsibility, thereby also relieving Graham from responsibility. Graham calculates the proportionate share owed totals no more than $7,353, which Graham previously paid. [Declaration of Patrick Graham.] Thus, the $28,072.70 balance remains the responsibility of Plaintiff.

While the arguments presented by Graham continue to vary, the court cannot deny the validity of the dispute. The court finds the argument for potential overestimation of the water rate presented to the court at the time of trial credible. The court also credits the prior existing balance to the assumption of the tenancy.

On the other hand, the court also appreciates and acknowledges the valid concerns regarding the potential damage to the credit of Plaintiff. Nevertheless, this ongoing dispute, without precise information based on rates and calculations per tenant user, cannot form the foundation for the imposition of a specific obligation on the tenant without clarification as to the specific calculations establishing a specific amount of liability for the water bill. Any relief must be predicated on providing the Court with the necessary information. The court therefore declines to lift the stay on this basis.

The motion is denied.

Plaintiff to give notice.