Preview
FILED: SCHOHARIE COUNTY CLERK 12/27/2023 09:48 AM INDEX NO. 2023-303NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/27/2023 Exhibit E Notice of DefaultFILED: SCHOHARIE COUNTY REPRESENTATION OF PRINTED DOCUMENT CLERK 12/27/2023 09:48 AM INDEX NO. 2023-303NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/27/2023 PO Box 268806 Oklahoma City, OK 73126-8806 0-573-64239-0000038-001-01-000-000-000-000 ***REV 4.96 05/30/2023*** ESTATE OF JUDITH E SHULTES 05/30/2023 1476 STATE ROUTE 443 BERNE NY 12023-0000 1476 STATE ROUTE 443 BERNE NY 12023-0000 Dear Homeowner: Please read the following important information regarding your mortgage loan, which is serviced by Midland Mortgage on behalf of MIDFIRST BANK (“Lender”). Pursuant to the terms of your Note, Mortgage/Deed of Trust and other applicable law, we are required to give you notice of the following: A. Your Note and Mortgage/Deed of Trust are presently in default due to your failure to make required monthly mortgage payments. B. The Total Amount Due to cure the default as of the date of this letter is $2,335.52, which amount includes past due monthly mortgage payments from 02/01/2023 through 05/01/2023, late charges, and allowable fees. Any amounts, including monthly payments, that become due after the date of this letter will remain due but do not need to be paid to cure the default identified in this letter. C. To cure this default, you must pay $2,335.52, the Total Amount Due as stated in paragraph ''B'' above to Midland Mortgage, a division of MidFirst Bank at P.O. Box 268888, Oklahoma City, OK 73126-8888. You may also have the option to pay online or by telephone. Please visit our website MyMidlandMortgage.com or contact our Account Coordinators at 800-552-3000, weekdays 8 a.m. - 7 p.m. or Saturdays 9 a.m. - 1 p.m. Central time for more information. D. Failure to cure the default on or before 07/04/2023, 35 days from the date of this letter, the Lender may accelerate the loan balance (declare the entire loan amount due and payable immediately) and terminate your interest in the property. In such case, your property may be sold at a foreclosure sale and you may be required to vacate the premises. You have the right to reinstate the loan after acceleration and the right to assert in the foreclosure proceeding (a) the non-existence of a default and/or (b) any other defense to acceleration of the loan and the sale of the property. The Lender may be entitled to collect all reasonable costs and expenses incurred in pursuing foreclosure or any other remedies in accordance with the terms of your security instrument or permitted by applicable law. E. Midland may accept funds that are less than the Total Amount Due and apply them to your account. However, this will not cure the default and may not prevent the acceleration of the loan balance or foreclosure as described above. Please be advised that pursuant to Section 169 of the Housing and Community Development INTERNET REPRINTFILED: SCHOHARIE COUNTY REPRESENTATION OF PRINTED DOCUMENT CLERK 12/27/2023 09:48 AM INDEX NO. 2023-303NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/27/2023 Act of 1987, you have the opportunity to receive counseling from various local agencies regarding the retention of your home. You may secure a list of these agencies by contacting the office of the Department Of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) nearest you by calling the toll free number 800-569-4287 or by visiting hud.gov/offices/hsg/sfh/hcc/hcs.cfm. It is important that you call our office to discuss the options available to you. Our Account Coordinators may be reached toll-free at 800-552-3000, weekdays, 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. or Saturdays 9 a.m. - 1 p.m. Central time. Sincerely, Midland Mortgage, a division of MidFirst Bank Notice: If your loan was in default when MidFirst Bank obtained it, and you have not filed bankruptcy or received a discharge of the debt secured by the Mortgage/Deed of Trust, we are required to inform you that this communication is from a debt collector. If you have received a bankruptcy discharge of the debt secured by the Mortgage/Deed of Trust, or you are currently in bankruptcy under the protection of an automatic stay, this letter is not an attempt to collect the debt from you personally and is for informational purposes only. INTERNET REPRINTFILED: SCHOHARIE COUNTY REPRESENTATION OF PRINTED DOCUMENT CLERK 12/27/2023 09:48 AM INDEX NO. 2023-303NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/27/2023 PO Box 268806 Oklahoma City, OK 73126-8806 3-573-64239-0000037-001-01-000-000-000-000 ***REV 4.96 05/30/2023*** CQ&U e wZ b6dB\/ ESTATE OF JUDITH E SHULTES 05/30/2023 1476 STATE ROUTE 443 BERNE NY 12023-4524 1476 STATE ROUTE 443 BERNE NY 12023-0000 Dear Homeowner: Please read the following important information regarding your mortgage loan, which is serviced by Midland Mortgage on behalf of MIDFIRST BANK (“Lender”). Pursuant to the terms of your Note, Mortgage/Deed of Trust and other applicable law, we are required to give you notice of the following: A. Your Note and Mortgage/Deed of Trust are presently in default due to your failure to make required monthly mortgage payments. B. The Total Amount Due to cure the default as of the date of this letter is $2,335.52, which amount includes past due monthly mortgage payments from 02/01/2023 through 05/01/2023, late charges, and allowable fees. Any amounts, including monthly payments, that become due after the date of this letter will remain due but do not need to be paid to cure the default identified in this letter. C. To cure this default, you must pay $2,335.52, the Total Amount Due as stated in paragraph ''B'' above to Midland Mortgage, a division of MidFirst Bank at P.O. Box 268888, Oklahoma City, OK 73126-8888. You may also have the option to pay online or by telephone. Please visit our website MyMidlandMortgage.com or contact our Account Coordinators at 800-552-3000, weekdays 8 a.m. - 7 p.m. or Saturdays 9 a.m. - 1 p.m. Central time for more information. D. Failure to cure the default on or before 07/04/2023, 35 days from the date of this letter, the Lender may accelerate the loan balance (declare the entire loan amount due and payable immediately) and terminate your interest in the property. In such case, your property may be sold at a foreclosure sale and you may be required to vacate the premises. You have the right to reinstate the loan after acceleration and the right to assert in the foreclosure proceeding (a) the non-existence of a default and/or (b) any other defense to acceleration of the loan and the sale of the property. The Lender may be entitled to collect all reasonable costs and expenses incurred in pursuing foreclosure or any other remedies in accordance with the terms of your security instrument or permitted by applicable law. E. Midland may accept funds that are less than the Total Amount Due and apply them to your account. However, this will not cure the default and may not prevent the acceleration of the loan balance or foreclosure as described above. Please be advised that pursuant to Section 169 of the Housing and Community Development INTERNET REPRINTFILED: SCHOHARIE COUNTY REPRESENTATION OF PRINTED DOCUMENT CLERK 12/27/2023 09:48 AM INDEX NO. 2023-303NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/27/2023 Act of 1987, you have the opportunity to receive counseling from various local agencies regarding the retention of your home. You may secure a list of these agencies by contacting the office of the Department Of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) nearest you by calling the toll free number 800-569-4287 or by visiting hud.gov/offices/hsg/sfh/hcc/hcs.cfm. It is important that you call our office to discuss the options available to you. Our Account Coordinators may be reached toll-free at 800-552-3000, weekdays, 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. or Saturdays 9 a.m. - 1 p.m. Central time. Sincerely, Midland Mortgage, a division of MidFirst Bank Notice: If your loan was in default when MidFirst Bank obtained it, and you have not filed bankruptcy or received a discharge of the debt secured by the Mortgage/Deed of Trust, we are required to inform you that this communication is from a debt collector. If you have received a bankruptcy discharge of the debt secured by the Mortgage/Deed of Trust, or you are currently in bankruptcy under the protection of an automatic stay, this letter is not an attempt to collect the debt from you personally and is for informational purposes only. INTERNET REPRINTFILED: SCHOHARIE COUNTY REPRESENTATION OF PRINTED DOCUMENT CLERK 12/27/2023 09:48 AM INDEX NO. 2023-303NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/27/2023 PO Box 268806 Oklahoma City, OK 73126-8806 7-573-64239-0000036-001-01-000-000-000-000 ***REV 4.96 05/30/2023*** CQ&U e wZ b6dB\/ WILLIAM M SHULTES 05/30/2023 1476 STATE ROUTE 443 BERNE NY 12023-0000 1476 STATE ROUTE 443 BERNE NY 12023-0000 Dear Homeowner: Please read the following important information regarding your mortgage loan, which is serviced by Midland Mortgage on behalf of MIDFIRST BANK (“Lender”). Pursuant to the terms of your Note, Mortgage/Deed of Trust and other applicable law, we are required to give you notice of the following: A. Your Note and Mortgage/Deed of Trust are presently in default due to your failure to make required monthly mortgage payments. B. The Total Amount Due to cure the default as of the date of this letter is $2,335.52, which amount includes past due monthly mortgage payments from 02/01/2023 through 05/01/2023, late charges, and allowable fees. Any amounts, including monthly payments, that become due after the date of this letter will remain due but do not need to be paid to cure the default identified in this letter. C. To cure this default, you must pay $2,335.52, the Total Amount Due as stated in paragraph ''B'' above to Midland Mortgage, a division of MidFirst Bank at P.O. Box 268888, Oklahoma City, OK 73126-8888. You may also have the option to pay online or by telephone. Please visit our website MyMidlandMortgage.com or contact our Account Coordinators at 800-552-3000, weekdays 8 a.m. - 7 p.m. or Saturdays 9 a.m. - 1 p.m. Central time for more information. D. Failure to cure the default on or before 07/04/2023, 35 days from the date of this letter, the Lender may accelerate the loan balance (declare the entire loan amount due and payable immediately) and terminate your interest in the property. In such case, your property may be sold at a foreclosure sale and you may be required to vacate the premises. You have the right to reinstate the loan after acceleration and the right to assert in the foreclosure proceeding (a) the non-existence of a default and/or (b) any other defense to acceleration of the loan and the sale of the property. The Lender may be entitled to collect all reasonable costs and expenses incurred in pursuing foreclosure or any other remedies in accordance with the terms of your security instrument or permitted by applicable law. E. Midland may accept funds that are less than the Total Amount Due and apply them to your account. However, this will not cure the default and may not prevent the acceleration of the loan balance or foreclosure as described above. Please be advised that pursuant to Section 169 of the Housing and Community Development INTERNET REPRINTFILED: SCHOHARIE COUNTY REPRESENTATION OF PRINTED DOCUMENT CLERK 12/27/2023 09:48 AM INDEX NO. 2023-303NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/27/2023 Act of 1987, you have the opportunity to receive counseling from various local agencies regarding the retention of your home. You may secure a list of these agencies by contacting the office of the Department Of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) nearest you by calling the toll free number 800-569-4287 or by visiting hud.gov/offices/hsg/sfh/hcc/hcs.cfm. It is important that you call our office to discuss the options available to you. Our Account Coordinators may be reached toll-free at 800-552-3000, weekdays, 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. or Saturdays 9 a.m. - 1 p.m. Central time. Sincerely, Midland Mortgage, a division of MidFirst Bank Notice: If your loan was in default when MidFirst Bank obtained it, and you have not filed bankruptcy or received a discharge of the debt secured by the Mortgage/Deed of Trust, we are required to inform you that this communication is from a debt collector. If you have received a bankruptcy discharge of the debt secured by the Mortgage/Deed of Trust, or you are currently in bankruptcy under the protection of an automatic stay, this letter is not an attempt to collect the debt from you personally and is for informational purposes only. INTERNET REPRINTFILED: SCHOHARIE COUNTY REPRESENTATION OF PRINTED DOCUMENT CLERK 12/27/2023 09:48 AM INDEX NO. 2023-303NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24 USPS CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/27/2023 PO Box 268806 Oklahoma City, OK 73126-8806 9207 1969 0043 7100 0774 6227 96 1-573-64240-0000016-001-01-000-000-000-000 ***REV 4.96 05/30/2023*** ESTATE OF JUDITH E SHULTES 05/30/2023 1476 STATE ROUTE 443 BERNE NY 12023-0000 1476 STATE ROUTE 443 BERNE NY 12023-0000 Dear Homeowner: Please read the following important information regarding your mortgage loan, which is serviced by Midland Mortgage on behalf of MIDFIRST BANK (“Lender”). Pursuant to the terms of your Note, Mortgage/Deed of Trust and other applicable law, we are required to give you notice of the following: A. Your Note and Mortgage/Deed of Trust are presently in default due to your failure to make required monthly mortgage payments. B. The Total Amount Due to cure the default as of the date of this letter is $2,335.52, which amount includes past due monthly mortgage payments from 02/01/2023 through 05/01/2023, late charges, and allowable fees. Any amounts, including monthly payments, that become due after the date of this letter will remain due but do not need to be paid to cure the default identified in this letter. C. To cure this default, you must pay $2,335.52, the Total Amount Due as stated in paragraph ''B'' above to Midland Mortgage, a division of MidFirst Bank at P.O. Box 268888, Oklahoma City, OK 73126-8888. You may also have the option to pay online or by telephone. Please visit our website MyMidlandMortgage.com or contact our Account Coordinators at 800-552-3000, weekdays 8 a.m. - 7 p.m. or Saturdays 9 a.m. - 1 p.m. Central time for more information. D. Failure to cure the default on or before 07/04/2023, 35 days from the date of this letter, the Lender may accelerate the loan balance (declare the entire loan amount due and payable immediately) and terminate your interest in the property. In such case, your property may be sold at a foreclosure sale and you may be required to vacate the premises. You have the right to reinstate the loan after acceleration and the right to assert in the foreclosure proceeding (a) the non-existence of a default and/or (b) any other defense to acceleration of the loan and the sale of the property. The Lender may be entitled to collect all reasonable costs and expenses incurred in pursuing foreclosure or any other remedies in accordance with the terms of your security instrument or permitted by applicable law. E. Midland may accept funds that are less than the Total Amount Due and apply them to your account. However, this will not cure the default and may not prevent the acceleration of the loan balance or foreclosure as described above. Please be advised that pursuant to Section 169 of the Housing and Community Development INTERNET REPRINTFILED: SCHOHARIE COUNTY REPRESENTATION OF PRINTED DOCUMENT CLERK 12/27/2023 09:48 AM INDEX NO. 2023-303NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/27/2023 Act of 1987, you have the opportunity to receive counseling from various local agencies regarding the retention of your home. You may secure a list of these agencies by contacting the office of the Department Of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) nearest you by calling the toll free number 800-569-4287 or by visiting hud.gov/offices/hsg/sfh/hcc/hcs.cfm. It is important that you call our office to discuss the options available to you. Our Account Coordinators may be reached toll-free at 800-552-3000, weekdays, 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. or Saturdays 9 a.m. - 1 p.m. Central time. Sincerely, Midland Mortgage, a division of MidFirst Bank Notice: If your loan was in default when MidFirst Bank obtained it, and you have not filed bankruptcy or received a discharge of the debt secured by the Mortgage/Deed of Trust, we are required to inform you that this communication is from a debt collector. If you have received a bankruptcy discharge of the debt secured by the Mortgage/Deed of Trust, or you are currently in bankruptcy under the protection of an automatic stay, this letter is not an attempt to collect the debt from you personally and is for informational purposes only. INTERNET REPRINTFILED: SCHOHARIE COUNTY REPRESENTATION OF PRINTED DOCUMENT CLERK 12/27/2023 09:48 AM INDEX NO. 2023-303NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24 USPS CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/27/2023 PO Box 268806 Oklahoma City, OK 73126-8806 9207 1969 0043 7100 0774 6227 89 ?M"QacV ^3`=X+ 4-573-64240-0000015-001-01-000-000-000-000 ***REV 4.96 05/30/2023*** ESTATE OF JUDITH E SHULTES 05/30/2023 1476 STATE ROUTE 443 BERNE NY 12023-4524 1476 STATE ROUTE 443 BERNE NY 12023-0000 Dear Homeowner: Please read the following important information regarding your mortgage loan, which is serviced by Midland Mortgage on behalf of MIDFIRST BANK (“Lender”). Pursuant to the terms of your Note, Mortgage/Deed of Trust and other applicable law, we are required to give you notice of the following: A. Your Note and Mortgage/Deed of Trust are presently in default due to your failure to make required monthly mortgage payments. B. The Total Amount Due to cure the default as of the date of this letter is $2,335.52, which amount includes past due monthly mortgage payments from 02/01/2023 through 05/01/2023, late charges, and allowable fees. Any amounts, including monthly payments, that become due after the date of this letter will remain due but do not need to be paid to cure the default identified in this letter. C. To cure this default, you must pay $2,335.52, the Total Amount Due as stated in paragraph ''B'' above to Midland Mortgage, a division of MidFirst Bank at P.O. Box 268888, Oklahoma City, OK 73126-8888. You may also have the option to pay online or by telephone. Please visit our website MyMidlandMortgage.com or contact our Account Coordinators at 800-552-3000, weekdays 8 a.m. - 7 p.m. or Saturdays 9 a.m. - 1 p.m. Central time for more information. D. Failure to cure the default on or before 07/04/2023, 35 days from the date of this letter, the Lender may accelerate the loan balance (declare the entire loan amount due and payable immediately) and terminate your interest in the property. In such case, your property may be sold at a foreclosure sale and you may be required to vacate the premises. You have the right to reinstate the loan after acceleration and the right to assert in the foreclosure proceeding (a) the non-existence of a default and/or (b) any other defense to acceleration of the loan and the sale of the property. The Lender may be entitled to collect all reasonable costs and expenses incurred in pursuing foreclosure or any other remedies in accordance with the terms of your security instrument or permitted by applicable law. E. Midland may accept funds that are less than the Total Amount Due and apply them to your account. However, this will not cure the default and may not prevent the acceleration of the loan balance or foreclosure as described above. Please be advised that pursuant to Section 169 of the Housing and Community Development INTERNET REPRINTFILED: SCHOHARIE COUNTY REPRESENTATION OF PRINTED DOCUMENT CLERK 12/27/2023 09:48 AM INDEX NO. 2023-303NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/27/2023 Act of 1987, you have the opportunity to receive counseling from various local agencies regarding the retention of your home. You may secure a list of these agencies by contacting the office of the Department Of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) nearest you by calling the toll free number 800-569-4287 or by visiting hud.gov/offices/hsg/sfh/hcc/hcs.cfm. It is important that you call our office to discuss the options available to you. Our Account Coordinators may be reached toll-free at 800-552-3000, weekdays, 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. or Saturdays 9 a.m. - 1 p.m. Central time. Sincerely, Midland Mortgage, a division of MidFirst Bank Notice: If your loan was in default when MidFirst Bank obtained it, and you have not filed bankruptcy or received a discharge of the debt secured by the Mortgage/Deed of Trust, we are required to inform you that this communication is from a debt collector. If you have received a bankruptcy discharge of the debt secured by the Mortgage/Deed of Trust, or you are currently in bankruptcy under the protection of an automatic stay, this letter is not an attempt to collect the debt from you personally and is for informational purposes only. INTERNET REPRINTFILED: SCHOHARIE COUNTY REPRESENTATION OF PRINTED DOCUMENT CLERK 12/27/2023 09:48 AM INDEX NO. 2023-303NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24 USPS CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/27/2023 PO Box 268806 Oklahoma City, OK 73126-8806 9207 1969 0043 7100 0774 6227 72 ?M"QacV ^1`=X+ 7-573-64240-0000014-001-01-000-000-000-000 ***REV 4.96 05/30/2023*** WILLIAM M SHULTES 05/30/2023 1476 STATE ROUTE 443 BERNE NY 12023-0000 1476 STATE ROUTE 443 BERNE NY 12023-0000 Dear Homeowner: Please read the following important information regarding your mortgage loan, which is serviced by Midland Mortgage on behalf of MIDFIRST BANK (“Lender”). Pursuant to the terms of your Note, Mortgage/Deed of Trust and other applicable law, we are required to give you notice of the following: A. Your Note and Mortgage/Deed of Trust are presently in default due to your failure to make required monthly mortgage payments. B. The Total Amount Due to cure the default as of the date of this letter is $2,335.52, which amount includes past due monthly mortgage payments from 02/01/2023 through 05/01/2023, late charges, and allowable fees. Any amounts, including monthly payments, that become due after the date of this letter will remain due but do not need to be paid to cure the default identified in this letter. C. To cure this default, you must pay $2,335.52, the Total Amount Due as stated in paragraph ''B'' above to Midland Mortgage, a division of MidFirst Bank at P.O. Box 268888, Oklahoma City, OK 73126-8888. You may also have the option to pay online or by telephone. Please visit our website MyMidlandMortgage.com or contact our Account Coordinators at 800-552-3000, weekdays 8 a.m. - 7 p.m. or Saturdays 9 a.m. - 1 p.m. Central time for more information. D. Failure to cure the default on or before 07/04/2023, 35 days from the date of this letter, the Lender may accelerate the loan balance (declare the entire loan amount due and payable immediately) and terminate your interest in the property. In such case, your property may be sold at a foreclosure sale and you may be required to vacate the premises. You have the right to reinstate the loan after acceleration and the right to assert in the foreclosure proceeding (a) the non-existence of a default and/or (b) any other defense to acceleration of the loan and the sale of the property. The Lender may be entitled to collect all reasonable costs and expenses incurred in pursuing foreclosure or any other remedies in accordance with the terms of your security instrument or permitted by applicable law. E. Midland may accept funds that are less than the Total Amount Due and apply them to your account. However, this will not cure the default and may not prevent the acceleration of the loan balance or foreclosure as described above. Please be advised that pursuant to Section 169 of the Housing and Community Development INTERNET REPRINTFILED: SCHOHARIE COUNTY REPRESENTATION OF PRINTED DOCUMENT CLERK 12/27/2023 09:48 AM INDEX NO. 2023-303NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/27/2023 Act of 1987, you have the opportunity to receive counseling from various local agencies regarding the retention of your home. You may secure a list of these agencies by contacting the ?M"QacV ^3]=X+ office of the Department Of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) nearest you by calling the toll free number 800-569-4287 or by visiting hud.gov/offices/hsg/sfh/hcc/hcs.cfm. It is important that you call our office to discuss the options available to you. Our Account Coordinators may be reached toll-free at 800-552-3000, weekdays, 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. or Saturdays 9 a.m. - 1 p.m. Central time. Sincerely, Midland Mortgage, a division of MidFirst Bank Notice: If your loan was in default when MidFirst Bank obtained it, and you have not filed bankruptcy or received a discharge of the debt secured by the Mortgage/Deed of Trust, we are required to inform you that this communication is from a debt collector. If you have received a bankruptcy discharge of the debt secured by the Mortgage/Deed of Trust, or you are currently in bankruptcy under the protection of an automatic stay, this letter is not an attempt to collect the debt from you personally and is for informational purposes only. INTERNET REPRINT
Related Contentin Schoharie County
Case
Tryon, Bonnie v. Board of Education, Cobleskill-Richmondville Central School District
Jul 28, 2021 |Ferreira, Hon. James H. |Comm-Contract |Comm-Contract |2021-408
Case
Cook, Paige Ashley v. Cook, Leonard
Feb 02, 2023 |Marcelle, Hon. Thomas |Mat-Uncontested |Mat-Uncontested |2023-32
Case
The Money Source v. Alberts, Michael
Oct 29, 2019 |Bartlett III, Hon. George R. |RP-Mortgage Foreclosure-Residential |RP-Mortgage Foreclosure-Residential |2019-550
Case
Community Bank, N.A. v. Leonard R. Cook Jr, Paige A. Cook, Discover Bank, John Doe #1 Through John Doe #10, Said Names Being Fictitious And Unknown To Plaintiff, Intended To Be Possible Tenants Or Occupants Of The Premises, Or Corporations, Persons, Or Other Entities Having Or Claiming A Lien Upon The Mortgaged Premises
Aug 27, 2024 |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |2024-420
Case
Discover Bank v. Shannon E Mahoney
Feb 07, 2024 |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |2024-75
Case
Citibank, N.A. v. Linda Hill
Aug 21, 2024 |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |2024-412
Case
Shafer, David A v. Van Valkenburgh-Shafer, Georgia R
Jun 07, 2024 |Ferreira, Hon. James H. |Mat-Uncontested |Mat-Uncontested |2024-254
Case
Community Bank, N.A. v. Alicia G Beller
Aug 23, 2024 |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Non-Card) Transaction |Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Non-Card) Transaction |2024-417
Case
Mollie Burgett v. C.Bradford Burgett
Jul 03, 2024 |James H. Ferreira |Matrimonial - Contested |Matrimonial - Contested |2024-331
Ruling
RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT FOR RDW, AN UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION VS RV DEV LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
Aug 23, 2024 |24PSCV01289
Case Number: 24PSCV01289 Hearing Date: August 23, 2024 Dept: O Tentative Ruling (1) Plaintiffs MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION DENIED without prejudice, because RDW has again failed to establish standing. (2) Defendant Sunjoint Development LLCs Demurrer To First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED with leave to amend. (3) Defendant Rv Dev LLCs Demurrer To First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED with leave to amend. As the demurrers are predicated upon the issue of standing, which is the principal issue raised in the motion for a preliminary injunction, the court will provide a consolidated analysis.[1] Background This case arises from efforts to convert a golf course for housing development and other purposes. Plaintiffs RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT FOR RDW (RDW) and James W. Chu (collectively, Plaintiffs) allege the following against Defendants RV DEV LLC (RV) and SUNJOINT DEVELOPMENT, LLC (Sunjoint) (collectively, Defendants): Plaintiffs are the owners of real property and are beneficiaries of a protective covenant running with their land. (First Amended Complaint (FAC) ¶1); Defendants are the owners of the Royal Vista Golf Club in the city of Walnut and the surrounding golf course properties, property that is subject to certain conditions and restrictions. (¶¶10-12.) Article II of the conditions and restrictions limits the use of Defendants land to be used only for the purpose of a golf course. (¶17.) Defendants, however, have recently closed the golf course and are changing the nature of the property. (¶18.) On April 23, 2024, the action was filed. On May 7, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their FAC for Injunctive Relief for Breach of Protective Restrictions. On May 16, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a. motion for preliminary injunction.[2] On May 29, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE AN ORDER DETERMINING AN OSC IS NOT REQUIRED (ex-parte application) (seeking an Order to Show Cause (OSC) re Preliminary Injunction pursuant to Rule 3.1150 of the California Rules of Court, or in the alternative an order determining that an OSC is not required). On May 31, 2024, RV (specially appearing defendant at the time of filing the opposition) filed an opposition to the ex-parte application (namely on the grounds that there can be no irreparable harm for not operating or maintaining a golf course). On June 3, 2024, the court denied Plaintiffs ex-parte application. On June 6, 2024, RV filed its opposition to the preliminary injunction motion (including evidentiary objections). That same day, Sunjoint also filed its opposition to the motion. On June 12, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their reply to both oppositions. On June 20, 2024, the court heard the matter, but continued the hearing for supplemental briefing (and because new information re: Chicago Title was added in reply). The parties have filed their supplemental briefs. Discussion[3] During the June 20, 2024 hearing, the court sought clarification on two matters: (i) standing and (ii) the nature of the injunction. In its supplemental brief, Plaintiffs advance the following arguments: - Chu has standing because he (like members of RDW) are successor owners of the properties described in the Protective Restriction (i.e., their properties are the residential neighborhoods surrounding the gulf course);[4] - RDW has standing to represent the interest of owners of benefitted properties in a REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY[5] and ASSOCIATIONAL STANDING[6] because, namely, Chu and RDW are successor owners and the members interest RDW seeks to protect are germane to RDWs purpose;[7] - Plaintiffs are seeking a prohibitory injunction (status quo ante).[8] The court again cannot reach the merits of the motion because Plaintiffs have failed to establish standing. Evidentiary Objections a. Ed Asuncion (OVERRULED) Plaintiffs submit the declaration of Ed Asuncion, a licensed surveyor, who mapped the Chicago Title documents.[9] Exhibit E locates the footprint of the properties described in the deeds and superimposes that footprint on an aerial photo of the Royal Vista area. (Asuncion Decl., ¶8.) The properties that are described in the Protective Restriction as benefitted and restricted parcels are developed out of two different tract maps: Tract 9494 and 9058; the map is broken up into four polygons. Both Sunjoint (Supp. Opp. p. 2:23-25) and RV (Supp. p. 6:5-7) object on the grounds that Asuncions declaration is inadmissible because it lacks foundation. It is unclear how foundation has not been laid when Asuncion declares that he has reviewed the deeds/recorded instruments and is qualified to testify (as he is a land surveyor). What is more, and as noted by Plaintiffs in Reply, Defendants have not offered evidence to otherwise contradict Asuncions finding(s). Therefore, the objections are overruled. b. Wanda Ewing (SUSTAINED) Notwithstanding, Sunjoints (Opp. p. 2:22-23) and RVs (Opp. p. 6:7-12) evidentiary objections to Wanda Ewings declaration are SUSTAINED. Wanda Ewing is a founding member and an organizer[10] of RDW and the corporate secretary for Royal Vista Open Space. (Ewing Decl., ¶1, emphasis added.) Her declaration provides, in relevant part, the following: Plaintiff Responsible Development for RDW is an unincorporated association whose members are owners of the residential properties in the neighborhoods surrounding the Royal Vista Golf Course in an unincorporated area of Los Angeles County. The area is near Rowland Heights, Diamond Bar, and Walnut, hence RDW&. I HAVE NOT HAD TIME TO COMPARE our various lists to the addresses in each polygon, but I have verified that we have members in each. Plaintiff Chu, at 20116 Emerald Meadow Drive, is in Polygon 1. By my count there are over 500 benefitted properties in those polygons. We have over 550 names on our email list and have submitted over 1000 signatures to Los Angeles Department of Regional Planning in opposition to the proposed project that includes the change in use for the Royal Vista golf course. Royal Vista Open Space (RVOS) is a nonprofit corporation whose purpose, like RDW, is the preservation of open space in the same area as RDW and responsible development of the area, including preservation of the golf course use, the related open space, and other aesthetic and environmental concerns. RVOS facilitates the collection of donations from members and supporters and manages expenditures for RDW and RVOSs other activities related to the preservation of open space and responsible development in the Royal Vista area&. (See generally Ewing Decl., emphasis and capitalization added.) First, as noted by Sunjoint and otherwise not addressed in reply/responses to evidentiary objections, Ewing mentions another corporate entity. It is unclear whether Ewing is conflating RDW or RVOS or how otherwise RVOS is relevant to this matter. Second, as noted by RV, Ewing has not compared various lists of members or supporters of RDW to any addresses within the footprint of the map of the benefitted properties. To the extent that Plaintiffs in reply argue that [s]he compared addresses on the RDW list to Exhibit E,[11] her declaration frankly literally says that she didnt have time to do such a comparison. And to the extent that Plaintiffs rebut that she has adequately laid the foundation as Ewing "counted houses,[12] that is not the declaration states. The declaration provides that based on [Ewings] count there are over 500 benefitted properties. If Ewing counted, there would be an exact number of homes accounted for. To the contrary, Ewings count appears to be based upon an inference using an email list. Thus, RDW has failed to demonstrate that its members have a demonstrable connection to the Protective Restriction. With that, though the two have different legal standards, RVs demurrer based on the grounds of standing is also sustained with leave to amend. Conclusion Based on the foregoingnamely as Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that RDWs members are benefitted ownersthe motion for a preliminary injunction is denied without prejudice and the demurrers are sustained with leave to amend. [1] Though evidence cannot be considered on a demurrer, at a minimum, there must be allegations that RDW has legal title to or vested property rights in any real property purportedly affected by the Declaration. [2] A motion was also filed on 5/15/24, but as the two appear identical and though the 5/16/24 motion is not labeled as amended, the court will presume the 5/16/24 motion is the moving paper. [3] Plaintiffs request for judicial notice of recorded instruments is granted. [4] Though not raised by Defendants, whether Chu filing suit in his separate, individual capacity may be worth addressing. A review of the cited cases (see e.g., Residents of Beverly Glen, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 117; Ravens Cove Townhomes, Inc. v. Knuppe Development Co. (1981) 114 Cal.App.3d 783; Oceanside Community Assn. v. Oceanside Land Co. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 166; Sierra Club v. Morton (1972) 405 U.S. 727; United Railroads v. Superior Court (1916) 172 Cal. 80; Rivers Side at Washington Square Homeowners Assn. v. Superior Court (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 1209) provides that the only plaintiff was the entity. (And this is not a class action for there to be a class representative.) Accordingly, it is unclear whether Chus filing suit individually affects the issue of standing. [5] A party may bring a representative action when the question is one of a common or general interest, of many persons, or when the parties are numerous, and it is impracticable to bring them all before the Court, one or more may sue or defend for the benefit of all. (Code Civ. Proc., § 382, emphasis added.) To establish standing for representative actions, Plaintiffs must satisfy two key requirements: they must demonstrate an ascertainable class and a well-defined community of interest regarding the legal and factual issues affecting the represented parties (see Ravens Cove Townhomes, Inc. v. Knuppe Development Co. (1981) 114 Cal.App.3d 783 (Ravens). In Ravens, the plaintiff was an HOA for a common interest development consisting of 65 townhomes. The HOA sued the developer for defects in the siding on the individual units. The court determined that the association adequately represented homeowners with a common, beneficial interest. Here, however, Plaintiffs have failed to show that their members have a legally cognizable interest in the Protective Restriction. [6] Associational standing is established when: (a) [the association's] members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests [the association] seeks to protect are germane to the organization's purpose; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit. (Hunt v. Washington Apple Advertising Comm'n (1977) 432 U.S. 333, 343, emphasis added.) Here, RDWs purpose is not explained, namely as Ewings declaration states the purpose of RVOS, not RDW. What constitutes as responsible? What constitutes as development? What constitutes responsible development? Constructing environmentally friendly and resource-efficient buildings? It is unclear. [7] A review of the papers suggests that there is one principal legal issue: need all of an entities members have an interest in the questions of law and fact involved. In Reply to Sunjoints opposition, Plaintiffs have provided an answer. (Reply p. 6, citing to Property Owners of Whispering Palms v. Newport Pacific, Inc. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 666 (Newport Pacific). In Newport Pacific, a residents association sued developer of standard subdivisions, architectural committees responsible for enforcement of declarations of restriction (CC&Rs), and individual members of committees after developer refused to surrender control over committees to residents. (The community was a multi-housing development with three subdivisions.) The defendants contended that the Association includes residents of one parcel who do not have any interest in the claims being asserted in this action, and that accordingly, the association lacked standing to sue because some of its members would not have standing to bring this action in their own right. (Id. at p. 673.) In rejecting that argument, the appellate court noted that the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that an association has standing to sue when its members, or any one of them, are suffering immediate or threatened injury as a result of the challenged action of the sort that would make out a justiciable case had the members themselves brought suit. [internal citations omitted]. Pursuant to these authorities, the fact that the Association's membership includes residents of Greens No. 1 does not prevent the Association's standing to bring this action on behalf of residents of Greens Nos. 2 and 3. (Ibid, emphasis added, italics original.) Thus, even if not all RDWs members are benefitted owners, that does not preclude RDW from having standing. Notwithstanding, there is still insufficient evidence set forth to show that RDW members are owners of the benefited properties. (See also Reply p. 6, citing to Sierra Club v. Morton (1972) 405 U.S. 727, 735 [Supreme Court held that the Sierra Club did not have standing to restrain federal officials from approving a development in the Sequoia National Forest because [t]he alleged injury will be felt directly only by those who use Mineral King and Sequoia National Park, and for whom the aesthetic and recreational values of the area will be lessened by the highway and ski resort. The Sierra Club failed to allege that it or its members would be affected in any of their activities or pastimes by the Disney development. Nowhere in the pleadings or affidavits did the Club state that its members use Mineral King for any purpose, much less that they use it in any way that would be significantly affected by the proposed actions of the respondents.].) Thus, as noted by Plaintiffs, Sierra Club also stands for the proposition that an entity need not allege that all its members have an interest. [8] Plaintiffs have clarified that they are not asking the court to compel Defendants to operate a golf course. Only that they comply with their obligations under the Protective Restriction and limit use of the property to a golf course. Thus, it appears Defendants misconstrue the relief. (See e.g., Sunjoint Opp. p. 7:24-25 [Forcing [Defendants] to begin operating a golf course is not incidental&[t]hat is&a mandatory act.]; see also RV Opp. p. 14:3-4 [[I]t is not merely an incidental requirement or necessary means to a prohibitory end, but rather the mandatory end itselfnamely, that RV Dev LLC be forced to operate a golf course.].) Accordingly, absent an affirmative act, it is unclear how this injunction seeks mandatory relief. But, even if it did, the court can still grant the relief, it is just subject to heightened scrutiny. [9] Asuncion is also a member of RDW. (Asuncion ¶1.) [10] Defendants do not raise this objection, but it is unclear whether a founding member and organizer has personal knowledge to speak on the operations of RDW. Stated differently, it is unclear when RDW was founded for Ewing to have current knowledge about RDWs structure. Ewings role as a secretary for RVOS is irrelevant to lay the foundation. [11] Plaintiffs Response to RVs Objection No. 11 (p. 9). [12] Plaintiffs Response to RVs Objection No. 12 (p. 10).
Ruling
FCS055088 - PALOMINO, TORIBIO VS. GUZMAN, JUAN PATOJA (DMS)
Aug 23, 2024 |FCS055088
FCS055088Motion for Attorneys’ FeesTENTATIVE RULINGPlaintiffs’ motion for award of attorneys’ fees is granted in part.Unless attorney’s fees are specifically authorized by statute or the parties have enteredinto an agreement for attorney’s fees, each party to a lawsuit must pay his or her ownattorney’s fees. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1021; Mountain Air Enters., LLC v. SundownerTowers, LLC (2017) 3 Cal.5th 744, 751; Tract 19051 Homeowners Ass’n v. Kemp(2015) 60 Cal.4th 1135, 1142.) Plaintiffs have not established that the parties enteredinto any agreement for attorney’s fees or that attorney’s fees are authorized by statutefor their causes of action for violation of the Unfair Competition Law, breach of thecovenant of quiet enjoyment, and negligence. However, the prevailing party is entitledto recover attorney’s fees for a habitability claim pursuant to Civil Code section 1942.4.(Civ. Code § 1942.4(b)(2).)When a cause of action for which attorney’s fees are authorized by statute is joined withother causes of action for which attorney’s fees may not be awarded, the prevailingparty may only recover on the statutory cause of action unless “the liability issues are sointerrelated that it would have been impossible to separate them into claims for whichattorney fees are properly awarded and claims for which they are not”. (Akins v. Enter.Rent-A-Car Co. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1127, 1133.) If the moving party does not“meaningfully” enlighten the court as to an appropriate apportionment, the court “shouldexercise its discretion in assigning a reasonable percentage … or simply cast themaside.” (Bell v. Vista Unified Sch. Dist. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 672, 689.)Plaintiffs claim 30.5 hours in prosecuting this action at an hourly rate of $395 for a totalof $12,047.50 (Decl. of Phillips, ¶ 2, Exh. 1), which appear to have been reasonablyincurred and reasonable in amount. However, Plaintiffs make no attempt to properlyapportion the fees between the habitability claim and the other causes of action and nobasis for reasonable apportionment appears from the descriptions of the tasks given incounsel’s time record.Having considered the superfluousness and derivative natures of the causes of actionfor violation of the UCL and the negligence claims, and the distinctness of the conductunderlying the quiet enjoyment and habitability claims, the court apportions 50 percentof the fees to the habitability cause of action. Plaintiffs are awarded $6,023.75 inattorney’s fees as the prevailing party for that claim.Plaintiffs also improperly seek court costs of $1,084.12 as part of this motion. Plaintiffsmust claim these costs in accordance with the rules adopted by the Judicial Council.(Code Civ. Proc. § 1034(a).)Department 7 is inviting you to a scheduled ZoomGov meeting.Join ZoomGov Meetinghttps://solano-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/1611554664?pwd=T3U4QlBGWWNWaGlieXJTcGxIVHRXZz09Meeting ID: 161 155 4664Passcode: 818575One tap mobile+16692545252,,1611554664#,,,,*818575# US (San Jose)+14154494000,,1611554664#,,,,*818575# US (US Spanish Line)
Ruling
GUADALUPE HARO vs. YEZENIA HARO
Aug 21, 2024 |C23-02878
C23-02878CASE NAME: GUADALUPE HARO VS. YEZENIA HARO*HEARING ON MOTION IN RE: FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE IN ACTIONFILED BY: ZCA HOMES LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY*TENTATIVE RULING:*Third party ZCA Homes, LLC filed this motion to intervene on July 1, 2024. The plaintiffs filed a noticeof non-opposition on August 7, 2024. ZCA Homes’ motion to intervene is appropriate under Code ofCivil Procedure 387(d) and is granted.
Ruling
ALBERT HUGHES, III, ET AL. VS THE NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY A WISCONSIN CORP D.B.A. TERRENA, ET AL.
Aug 26, 2024 |22CHCV00637
Case Number: 22CHCV00637 Hearing Date: August 26, 2024 Dept: 43 Albert Hughes, III, et al. vs. The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, et al. Trial Date: N/A MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Albert Hughes III and Sabrina Crawford RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants Laura De Leon and FF Properties RELIEF REQUESTED An order quashing Defendants subpoena, as well as sanctions. RULING: Motion is granted. SUMMARY OF ACTION Plaintiffs Albert Hughes III and Sabrina Crawford (Plaintiffs) are alleging that Defendants Laura De Leon and FF Properties LP (Defendants) failed to disclose to them a death in the common area of the apartment complex where they lived. Plaintiff Hughes is claiming that he is an attorney who sometimes worked out of their apartment and that he lost potential clients because they were scared to come to the apartment complex. Plaintiffs are seeking $12.7 million in damages for the alleged lost earnings. As part of discovery, Defendants have issued a subpoena to Plaintiff Hughes former employer, De La Pena & Holiday, LLP. The subpoena requested the following: Any and all documents and records, including but not limited to, payroll, personnel, employment and wage records, W-2, Form 1099, including pre-employment records and application, resume, physical examinations, work absence records, internal investigation records, vacation records, loss of earnings records, disciplinary records, internal investigation records, employee progress records, all claims under health, accident or hospitalization insurance coverage pertaining to: Albert Hughes . . . . (Hughes Dec., Exhibit A.) Defendants have agreed to forgo tax return information but argue that the other documents they seek are directly relevant to both causation and the amount of Plaintiffs alleged damages. Defendants argue that they are entitled to challenge Plaintiffs claim that he was fired because of Defendants actions and not his own abilities or performance as an attorney and Plaintiffs claim that he has the skills, track record, and ability to have taken those cases to trial and obtained the massive judgments he alleges he would have obtained had he not been fired. Plaintiffs argue in their motion to quash that the documents sought are protected by privacy interests and are irrelevant. Plaintiffs also argue that they are entitled to attorney fees for having to bring this motion, but Plaintiffs have brought this case in pro per. Defendants argue in their opposition that the records sought are relevant and Plaintiff has put his employment records at issue by making a $12.7 million loss of earnings claim. Next, Defendants argue that parties can obtain broad discovery into employment records and Plaintiffs employment records are discoverable. Finally, Defendants argue that Plaintiff is a self-represented party and is not entitled to monetary sanctions as a matter of law. Defendants argue that they are entitled to sanctions instead. Plaintiffs argue in reply that Hughes is not seeking damages related to lost earnings from his former job at De La Pena & Holiday; instead, he is seeking damages related to his lost earnings from his own firm, the Law Office of Albert Hughes III. They also argue that the personnel records sought are protected by privacy. Plaintiffs also argue that the personnel documents would be inadmissible character evidence and hearsay. Finally, Plaintiffs insist that they should be awarded fees. ANALYSIS CCP § 2017.010 allows discovery relevant to the subject-matter of the lawsuit or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Information should be regarded as relevant if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. (Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.) In this case, Plaintiff Hughes has made his earning capacity relevant to the case by claiming $12.7 million in future lost earnings. [A] loss of earning capacity is the difference between what the plaintiffs earning capacity was before her injury and what it is after the injury. [] Because these damages turn on the plaintiff's earning capacity, the focus is not [on] what the plaintiff would have earned in the future[,] but [on] what she could have earned. (Licudine v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 881, 893 (citations omitted).) Based on this, records related to Plaintiffs earning capacity are relevant. However, Defendants are seeking records from De La Pena & Holiday. Plaintiff is claiming lost earnings from his own practice, the Law Office of Albert Hughes III, not De La Pena & Holiday. According to Plaintiffs form interrogatory responses, he moved into the apartment on November 27, 2021, and stopped working at the De La Pena firm on December 3, 2021. (Plaintiffs response to form interrogatories 8.5 and 12.1, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Decl. of Issa Mikel.) The Court agrees that Plaintiffs skill and experience as a lawyer are relevant to the issue of his earning capacity. The length of time he has been licensed to practice law, the nature of the work he performed, his trial experience and success rate are all ripe for discovery. However, the subpoena seeks information well beyond that scope. Vacation records, health insurance information, and physical examination results have no apparent bearing on that issue, making the subpoena overbroad. The Court also believes that other avenues exist to discover information about plaintiffs background and experience that should be tried first. Next, when considering privacy interests, a balancing test applies, and the burden is on the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and the seriousness of the prospective invasion and then the court must weight the countervailing interests the opposing party identifies. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557.) The balancing test in this case weighs in favor of privacy because the records that Defendants seek are not directly relevant to Plaintiffs claim for lost earnings from the Law Office of Albert Hughes III. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs motion to quash subpoena is granted. Sanctions CCP § 2023.030 allows the Court to impose a monetary sanction on any party that misuses the discovery process. However, Plaintiff Albert Hughes is representing himself alone in connection with this motion and is therefore not entitled to recover attorneys fees. (Agraman v. Ratan (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1173, 1180.) ORDER 1. Plaintiffs motion to quash the subpoena is granted, but no sanctions are awarded. 2. Plaintiff to give notice.
Ruling
- GRESIO, TINA vs MYERS, BEVERLY J
Aug 26, 2024 |CV-24-004770
CV-24-004770 - GRESIO, TINA vs MYERS, BEVERLY J - Plaintiff's Motion For Preliminary Injunction Prohibiting Eviction, Encumbrances,and Sale Of Property Ccp526(A)(1)-(4); 527(A) - CONTINUED, at the moving party’s request, to October 9, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23.
Ruling
Mark Hicks vs. Jerreece Jackson
Aug 27, 2024 |23CECG04303
Re: Hicks v. Jackson Superior Court Case No. 23CECG04303Hearing Date: August 27, 2024 (Dept. 403)Motion: (1) Cross-Defendant Hicks’ Demurrer to Second Amended Cross-Complaint (2) Cross-Complainant Jackson’s Motion to Strike Demurrer to Second Amended Cross-Complaint (3) Cross-Complainant Jackson’s Motion to Strike Answer to Second Amended Cross-ComplaintTentative Ruling: To take off calendar Cross-Defendant Hicks’ demurrer to the Second AmendedCross-Complaint, as no moving papers were filed with the court. To find moot Cross-Complainant Jackson’s Motion to Strike the Demurrer to theSecond Amended Cross-Complaint, as the motion is off calendar. To take off calendar Cross-Complainant Jackson’s Motion to Strike Cross-Defendant Hicks’ answer to the Second Amended Cross-Complaint.Explanation: Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 provides in pertinent part, “Unless otherwiseordered or specifically provided for by law, all moving and supporting papers shall beserved and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing.” (Code Civ. Proc., §1005, subd.(b).) The proof of service of the moving papers must be filed no later than five court daysbefore the hearing. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300, subd. (d).) Cross-complainant filed her motion to strike Mark Hicks’ answer to the SecondAmended Cross-Complaint on August 9, 2024 with a hearing date of August 27, 2024. Themoving papers were filed with fewer than 16 court days before the hearing on themotion. Moreover, there is no proof of service accompanying the moving papersdemonstrating timely notice of the motion to all parties. Accordingly, the motion is takenoff calendar for failure to timely file and serve the moving papers. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Proceduresection 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute orderadopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerkwill constitute notice of the order.Tentative RulingIssued By: JS on 8/21/2024 . (Judge’s initials) (Date)
Ruling
SYDNEY BAEK VS LASUPPORTIVEHOUSING, LLC
Aug 27, 2024 |24CMCV00508
Case Number: 24CMCV00508 Hearing Date: August 27, 2024 Dept: A 24CMCV00508 Sydney Baek v. LASUPPORTIVEHOUSING, LLC Tuesday, August 27, 2024 [TENTATIVE] ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON DEFAULT JUDGMENT I. BACKGROUND This action arises from Defendants alleged breach of a written lease agreement for four different parcels of residential real property. Plaintiff alleges $288,804 in damages for Defendants alleged failure to pay rent. The clerk entered defendant against Defendant, LA SupportiveHousing, LLC on June 16, 2024. Plaintiff does not allege sufficient facts to support the foundation or authenticity of the business records submitted. The complaint alleges principal damages of $288,804.00. (Complaint 4:18-19.) However, Plaintiffs Damage History Note shows principal damages for unpaid rent and repairs totaling $281,221.00. (Ex. 2, .pdf 16.) Plaintiff requests expenses for repair and cleaning totaling $55,183 (Baek decl., ¶ 19). However, the sum of all invoices is $46,483.00 (Baek Decl., Ex. 3.) Invoice 2007 11164 repair/replace and repair 9940 2/17/23 11164 1⁄2 repair/replace 9750 4/2/23 11166 repair/replace 9300 12/5/22 11166 1⁄2 repaint 10,000 2/16/23 11164 1⁄2 rekey 165 2/28/23 11164 1⁄2 install refrigerator/Stove 750 2/16/23 11164 1⁄2 security 1200 12/30/22 11164 security for 26 days 2500 5/12/22 Security 2600 3/22/23 11166 & 11166 1⁄2 new keys and locks 278 TOTAL 46,483 Additionally, Invoice # 2007 was submitted twice. While Plaintiff mentions recovery of attorney fees, there is no discussion of the basis for its calculation, nor is it separately accounted for in the proposed judgment (Baek decl., ¶ 21.) Costs of $635 are established. Plaintiff collected $10,000 for a security deposit. (Lease, Ex. 1, ¶ 4.A.) The landlord may recover reasonably necessary amounts to remedy tenant defaults in the payment of rent, to repair damages to the premises caused by the tenant, or to clean the premises upon termination of the tenancy, if the payment or deposit is made for any or all of those specific purposes." (Civ. Code, § 1950.5; (a); Civ. Code, § 1950.7(c).) Declarant Baek does not account for the security deposit and whether it was applied to the back rent, cleaning, or repairs. Accordingly, the hearing on Plaintiffs request for court judgment is continued for Plaintiff to submit a supplemental declaration supporting the submission of the business records, a calculation of damages supported by invoices and receipts, allocation of the security deposit, evidence to support principal damages and a re-calculation of principal damages, for back rent damages for repairs/cleaning. If attorneys fees were sought, Plaintiff is ordered to explain the basis for such fees, its calculation, and apply it separately in the proposed judgment where indicated. The hearing is continued to October 31, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. in Department A of the Compton Courthouse. Plaintiff is ordered to provide a supplemental declaration discussing the foregoing discrepancies at least 10 court days before the hearing.
Ruling
Sol Selection, LLC vs. All persons unknown
Aug 28, 2024 |23CV-0203591
SOL SELECTION, LLC VS. ALL PERSONS UNKNOWNCase Number: 23CV-0203591This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of default judgment. On June 5, 2024, thisCourt issued its Ruling after a June 3, 2024 Default Prove Up hearing. The Court denied therequest to enter default judgment without prejudice. Nothing further has been filed. Anappearance is necessary on today’s calendar to provide the Court with a status of defaultjudgment.
Document
Nationstar Mortgage Llc v. Kerri Boellner, Stephanie Parker a/k/a Stephanie C. Parker, Midland Funding Llc A/P/O Target National Bank, John Doe #1 Through #6, And Jane Doe #1 Through #6, The Last Twelve Names Being Fictitious, It Being The Intention Of Plaintiff To Designate Any And All Occupants, Tenants, Persons Or Corporations, If Any, Having Or Claiming An Interest In Or Lien Upon the premises being foreclosed herein
Jun 21, 2024 |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |2024-307
Document
Fifth Third Bank, National Association v. Melissa A. Tenace, William Liberatore
May 12, 2022 |James H. Ferreira |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |2022-174
Document
U.S. Bank Trust National Association, As Trustee, Meb Loan Trust Iv v. Linda-Lee M. Abraham A/K/A LINDA ABRAHAM A/K/A LINDA L. ABRAHAM, Cobleskill Regional Hospital, Edward Abraham
Mar 07, 2023 |Peter A. Lynch |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |2023-76
Document
Community Bank, N.A. v. Leonard R. Cook Jr, Paige A. Cook, Discover Bank, John Doe #1 Through John Doe #10, Said Names Being Fictitious And Unknown To Plaintiff, Intended To Be Possible Tenants Or Occupants Of The Premises, Or Corporations, Persons, Or Other Entities Having Or Claiming A Lien Upon The Mortgaged Premises
Aug 27, 2024 |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |2024-420
Document
Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, Successor By Merger To Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, N.A., As Trustee For Aegis Asset Backed Securities Trust 2003-1, Mortgage Loan Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2003-1 v. Tracy M Bengtson, John Doe And Jane Doe Said Names Being Fictitious, It Being The Intention Of Plaintiff To Designate Any And All Occupants Of Premises Being Foreclosed Herein
Oct 20, 2022 |James H. Ferreira |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |2022-346
Document
Federal National Mortgage Association AKA FANNIE MAE A CORPORATION ORGANIZED AND EXISTING UNER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Fred Dufek Jr, Robin Dufek, Laurie Dufek, Troy Dufek
Jan 04, 2022 |James H. Ferreira |Real Property - Other (Easem*nt, Possession) |Real Property - Other (Easem*nt, Possession) |2022-3
Document
Lawrence J Delli Veneri v. Charles D Shaul, Judy A Shaul
Jan 22, 2021 |James H. Ferreira |Real Property - Other (Art 781 sec 15) |Real Property - Other (Art 781 sec 15) |2021-40
Document
Nationstar Mortgage Llc v. Kerri Boellner, Stephanie Parker a/k/a Stephanie C. Parker, Midland Funding Llc A/P/O Target National Bank, John Doe #1 Through #6, And Jane Doe #1 Through #6, The Last Twelve Names Being Fictitious, It Being The Intention Of Plaintiff To Designate Any And All Occupants, Tenants, Persons Or Corporations, If Any, Having Or Claiming An Interest In Or Lien Upon the premises being foreclosed herein
Jun 21, 2024 |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |2024-307
