Judge Thomas D. Long, Case Number: 21STCV28753, Date: 2024-12-12 Tentative Ruling

On September 5, 2024, the Court entered an order approving payment to the Partition Referee and discharging the Partition Referee. The Partition Referee has deposited the remaining $308,470.10 proceeds with the Clerk of the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

Counsel for Plaintiff filed a declaration with a proposed distribution of the sale proceeds. On September 10, 2024, the Court set an Order to Show Cause Re: Adopting Plaintiff’s Proposed Distribution of Proceeds and ordered briefing.

On April 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed a memorandum of costs. On April 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to apportion attorney fees and costs.

The costs of partition include reasonable attorney fees incurred or paid by a party for the common benefit. (Code Civ. Proc., § 874.010, subd. (a).) The “common benefit” in a partition action is the proper distribution of the respective shares and interests in said property by the ultimate judgment of the court, even when the partition was opposed. (Orien v. Lutz (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 957, 967.)

Through April 1, 2024, Plaintiff paid her counsel $13,837.50 in fees at counsel’s $225 hourly rate. (Belshaw Fees Decl. ¶ 6.) The Court has reviewed the invoices and finds that the fees are reasonable. As of November 25, 2024, the total attorney fees are $17,212.32. (See Belshaw 2nd Distribution Decl. ¶¶ 8, 10.)

Plaintiff “has paid all of the attorney fees out of her own pocket.” (Belshaw Fees Decl. ¶ 6.) Accordingly, the Court will deduct $8,606.16 from Defendant’s share of the distribution as reimbursement to Plaintiff.

On November 6, 2023, the Court ordered: “The Wells Fargo Bank loan and the Los Angeles Federal Credit Union loan will be paid first and then expenses of sale will be paid. The remaining balance shall be split evenly between the parties except that the entire balance of the two loans will be paid from the Defendant’s share. [¶] Further, the Court may grant additional credits to one or both of the parties based on the fair market rental value of the property from and after November 6, 1996, monies spent improving, repairing, or maintaining the property from and after November 6, 1996, and property taxes paid from and after November 6, 1996. The parties’ case remains open to present additional evidence.”

Defendant argues that he did not receive $195,793.46 equity, as Plaintiff states, because “this sum is the payoff of the two loans.” (Opposition at p. 2.) The Court ordered that the entire balance of the Wells Fargo Bank loan and the Los Angeles Federal Credit Union loan be paid from the Defendant’s share.

Defendant requests reimbursement of property taxes and homeowner’s insurance. (Opposition at pp. 3-4.) The Court’s November 6, 2023 order did state that the Court may grant additional credits to one or both of the parties “based on the fair market rental value of the property from and after November 6, 1996, monies spent improving, repairing, or maintaining the property from and after November 6, 1996, and property taxes paid from and after November 6, 1996.” The case remained open to present additional evidence. However, Defendant does not provide any admissible evidence.

Defendant states that “[t]he total estimated taxes paid by Defendant is: $41,400.00. Plaintiff to Reimburse Defendant the sum of $20,700.00.” (Opposition at p. 4.) There is no supporting evidence for his 1997-2006 and 2007-2014 totals, and “[f]rom 2015-2017 the amount is unknown so let’s leave it at $2,400.00 for 2 years = $4,800.00.” (Ibid.) The Court will not credit Defendant for estimated and unsupported property taxes.

Similarly, “[t]he total estimated Homeowner’s Insurance is not known for all the years from 11/1996 to 2024,” but “the amounts where receipts can be produced and paid by Defendant is: $3,284.38.” (Opposition at p. 4.) Defendant provides an unauthenticated Renewal Declaration showing a premium of $623.38 for December 9, 2022 to December 9, 2023, and an unauthenticated email from a State Farm Agent that lists Defendant’s annual premiums from December 2013 through December 2023. The Court will not credit Defendant for unsupported homeowner’s insurance.

Defendant requests that Plaintiff be solely responsible for $9,490.50 paid out of escrow for her personal state tax. (Opposition at p. 4.) The Court’s November 6, 2023 order did not permit this credit, and Defendant provides no authenticated evidence.

Defendant requests reimbursement of mortgage payments. (Opposition at pp. 4-5.) “As for the mortgage payments made over the years, it’s hard to calculate, so we’ll stick with the balance that was paid off at the time of sale.” (Id. at p. 4.) Defendant therefore requests one-half of the $195,793.46 mortgage paid by escrow. (Id. at pp. 4-5.) This is the total amount of the Wells Fargo Bank and the Los Angeles Federal Credit Union loans, and the Court already ordered that the two loans be paid entirely from Defendant’s share of the distribution.

Defendant has not shown entitlement to any additional credits. The Court is therefore inclined to adopt Plaintiff’s proposed distribution.

Because Defendant already received $195,793.46 in equity from the loan payoffs, Plaintiff will first receive an equal $195,793.46 from the $308,470.10 deposited funds.

The remaining $112,676.64 of the deposited funds will be divided equally between the parties at $56,338.32 each. Plaintiff’s balance so far: $252,131.78 ($195,793.46 + $56,338.32). Defendant’s balance so far: $56,338.32.

Each party is responsible for $8,606.16 in attorney fees. Plaintiff has already paid the full amount to her attorney, so Defendant’s $8,606.16 share is to reimburse Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s balance so far: $260,737.94 ($252,131.78 + $8,606.16). Defendant’s balance so far: $47,732.16 ($56,338.32 - $8,606.16).

Plaintiff, the prevailing party in this partition action, filed a memorandum of costs in the amount of $2,739.30. This amount will be paid by Defendant to Plaintiff as reimbursement for her costs. Plaintiff’s balance so far: $263,477.24 ($260,737.94 + $2,739.30). Defendant’s balance so far: $44,992.86 ($47,732.16 - $2,739.30).

Based on Plaintiff’s proposed distribution and the evidence presented, Plaintiff is entitled to $263,477.24, and Defendant is entitled to $44,992.86.

To further clarify the distribution amounts, the Court presents an alternative calculation for the same distribution.

The Wells Fargo Bank loan and the Los Angeles Federal Credit Union loan were paid out of escrow for a total of $195,793.46. (Belshaw 2nd Distribution Decl. ¶ 4.) The Court will add this amount to the deposited funds to begin the calculations. The starting balance for distribution is $504,263.56 ($252,131.78 each).

From the starting balance, the loans are paid from Defendant’s half. Defendant’s deductions so far: $195,793.46.

The apportioned attorney fees are $8,606.16 for each party. Plaintiff has already paid the full amount to her attorney, so Defendant’s $8,606.16 share is to reimburse Plaintiff. Only Defendant, not Plaintiff, will incur this deduction. Defendant’s deductions so far: $204,399.62 ($195,793.46 + $8,606.16).

The memorandum of costs is in the amount of $2,739.30. Only Defendant, not Plaintiff, will incur this deduction. Defendant’s deductions so far: $207,138.92 ($204,399.62 + $2,739.30).

From Defendant’s $252,131.78 starting balance, $207,138.92 must be deducted, for a final balance of $44,992.86.

Defendant’s attorney fees and costs deductions are shifted as credits to Plaintiff. From Plaintiff’s $252,131.78 starting balance, she is credited $11,345.46 ($8,606.16 + $2,739.30), for a final balance of $263,477.24.

The Court orders that the $308,470.10 deposited with the Clerk of the Los Angeles County Superior Court be distributed as follows: $263,477.24 to Plaintiff Leontyne R. Taylor and $44,992.86 to Defendant Eric E. Burl.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court