Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 22AHCV00871, Date: 2025-03-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV00871    Hearing Date: March 18, 2025    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

On February 18, 2025, Lyco 1, LLC (“Lyco”) filed this motion requesting the appointment of a “manager/receiver” to manage the real property at issue in this partition action located at 3603 Vane Avenue in Rosemead, California 91770 (“Property”). The Property is jointly owned by Lyco (which is comprised of Randy Cheng (“Randy”) and his wife, Alice Liu, and Michael Cheng (“Michael”) as joint tenants. Neither co-tenant currently lives at the Property; the Property is occupied by Randy and Michael’s siblings. The mother of Randy and Michael, Truong Ngoc, who had been residing at the Property and who had been concerned about continuing to reside at the Property during her lifetime, even while her sons battled over it and expressed their regard for her circumstances, is concerned no longer, having died on November 4, 2024.

A court has jurisdiction to appoint a receiver pending a partition action “where necessary to preserve the property or rights of any party.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 564, subd. (b)(9).) Lyco argues that appointing a manager is necessary in order to maintain the Property, purchase insurance, and collect rent from the current occupants. Lyco submits the declaration of Randy Cheng (“Randy”), who states that while he has collected monthly rent from his siblings who reside at the Property from 2012 to 2022, they stopped paying rent at Michael’s instruction after Lyco filed this action. (Motion, R. Cheng Decl., ¶ 8.) Lyco requests that a manager collect the rent and deposit it into the trust account, monitor the condition of the Property and maintain it when needed, pay for insurance, utilities, and property tax, and provide a monthly report on income and expenses. (Motion, p. 5.) Lyco also requests that a manager “set” the monthly rent at $3,400 a month (increased from the current monthly rent of $1,300), although Lyco provides no legal authority for increasing rent by 161.5%.

In opposition, Michael argues that appointing a receiver would be an unnecessary expense. Instead, Michael proposes to open a joint bank account with Lyco in order to deposit all rent received and pay bills; both parties would have digital access to account records. Michael also describes his efforts, beginning in 2022, to maintain the property and obtain insurance in 2022. He attaches photos of the Property taken around March 10, 2023, as part of an insurance inspection report, as well as the current state of the Property . (M. Cheng Decl., Exs. 3-5.) He also includes invoices from different businesses showing the type of maintenance that was performed and the amounts paid. (Id., Ex. 6.)

Lyco submits a supplemental declaration from Randy Cheng in response to Michael Cheng’s declaration and requests the Court appoint a property manager (as opposed to a receiver) and claims that any maintenance performed by Michael was fabricated in order to increase his share of the property. (Supp. R. Cheng Decl., ¶ 6.)

There is no basis for appointing a receiver because neither Lyco nor Michael are in possession of the Property; the Property is currently being rented to Randy and Michael’s siblings. (Reas v. Clemence (1916) 173 Cal. 106, 108 [no receiver appointed where no tenant is interfering with possession and use of property].) There also appears to be no threat of irreparable injury to Lyco and Michael’s interests in the Property as demonstrated by the photos attached to Michael’s declarations and evidence of maintenance. (Maggiora v. Palo Alto Inn, Inc. (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 706, 710 [party seeking appointment of receiver must show that property is in danger of destruction, removal or misappropriation].) Additionally, the Property is insured and the property tax bills have been paid. (M. Cheng Decl., Exs. 1-2.) Moreover, Lyco cites to no statute or law allowing the Court to appoint a “property manager”, nor does it appear that a manager is necessary.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED. Now would appear to be the time for the parties to revisit the possibility of agreeing to a partition of the Property and distribution of the proceeds, all with the assistance of a court-appointed referee. These discussions about the appointment of receivers or property managers would appear to be beside the point at this juncture, no ongoing claim as to the Property any longer being made by anybody other than the parties. The Cheng sibling-tenants of the Property are not parties to this action and have no ownership interest in the Property.

Dated this 18th day of March 2025

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.