What are the Homestead Laws?

Useful Rulings on Homestead Laws

Recent Rulings on Homestead Laws

PENTECH FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. VS RENE MEDINA

“Section 704.740 is part of the homestead laws. ‘Homestead laws are designed to protect the sanctity of the family home against a loss caused by a forced sale by creditors. . . The homestead exemption ensures that insolvent debtors and their families are not rendered homeless by virtue of an involuntary sale of the residential property they occupy. Thus, the homestead law is not designed to protect creditors. . .

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE COMPANY VS BRYAN C. CLARK, ET AL.

“[T]he second unreconveyed lien . . . is a Homestead Declaration, purportedly executed by Defendant Ho in favor of Defendant Ho, and recorded in the Official Records of the County of Los Angeles on April 4, 2016 as Document Number 20160369290 (the "Homestead Declaration").” (Id. ¶ 19.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

GREAT PLAINS CAPITAL CORP. VS ARUTUN DEMIRCHYAN

The application for sale must have a declaration which states: (1) the legal description of the property and the street address of the dwelling; (2) whether the records of the county tax assessor indicate whether there is a current homeowner’s or disabled veteran’s exemption for the dwelling; (3) whether the dwelling is a homestead and the amount of the homestead exemption, if addresses of the lien holders. (CCP §704.760.) Local court rules require further evidence. LA Sup. Ct.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

HITACHI CAPITAL AMERICA CORP VS OT TRUCKLINES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

"The recording of a homestead declaration (as defined in section 704.910) does not limit or affect the right of plaintiff to attach the declared homestead described in the homestead declaration whether the homestead declaration is recorded before or after the declared homestead is attached." CCP §487.025. Finally, Defendants also object to the manner and method of any proposed sale. However, any such objection is premature at this time and speculative.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

BRAUN V. HAYDT

(Homestead Savings v. 186 Darmiento (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 424, 437, 281 Cal.Rptr. 367.)” (Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 261, 272.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 05, 2020

AUBURN LAKE TRAILS V. MAXIMOVITCH

If the records of the county tax assessor indicate that there is not a current homeowner's exemption or disabled veteran's exemption for the dwelling claimed by the judgment debtor or the judgment debtor's spouse, the burden of proof that the dwelling is a homestead is on the person who claims that the dwelling is a homestead. ¶ (2) If the application states the amount of the homestead exemption, the person claiming the homestead exemption has the burden of proof that the amount of the exemption is other than

  • Hearing

    Jun 05, 2020

MURRAY VS. CAMPOS

Code of Civil Procedure section 487.025 (b) specifies the amount of equity in a homestead to which an attachment lien attaches, i.e., only that amount in excess of all liens and encumbrances and the amount of the homestead exemption. The court grants the Claim of Exemption to this extent: plaintiffs’ may not attach amounts in excess of those permitted by CCP § 487.025.

  • Hearing

    Jun 03, 2020

AUBURN LAKE TRAILS V. MAXIMOVITCH

If the records of the county tax assessor indicate that there is not a current homeowner's exemption or disabled veteran's exemption for the dwelling claimed by the judgment debtor or the judgment debtor's spouse, the burden of proof that the dwelling is a homestead is on the person who claims that the dwelling is a homestead. ¶ (2) If the application states the amount of the homestead exemption, the person claiming the homestead exemption has the burden of proof that the amount of the exemption is other than

  • Hearing

    Mar 20, 2020

MARK RODRIGUES VS. NICOLAS STEELE ET. AL.

Procedure Under Los Angeles County Superior Court Rule 3.223, “[a]n application for an order for sale of a dwelling must provide at the hearing competent evidence of the following: (1) The fair market value of the property by a real estate expert; (2) Litigation guarantee or title report that contains a legal description of the property, the names of the current owners, a list of all deeds of trust, abstracts of judgments, tax liens and other liens recorded against the property, whether a declaration of homestead

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

RICHMOND POINTE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION V. PETRASICH

(See Homestead Sav. v. Sup.Ct. (Dividend Develop. Corp.) (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 494, 498 (court may not summarily adjudicate claims or defenses as to which no triable issue was raised unless requested in the notice of motion.).) Even if the combined request for summary adjudication were procedurally proper, for the reasons set forth above, the Court concludes there is a triable issue of fact as to the first cause of action for breach of the CC&Rs.

  • Hearing

    Mar 09, 2020

PENTECH FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. VS RENE MEDINA

The amount of the homestead exemption is $175,000.00 if the judgment debtor or spouse of the judgment debtor who resides in the homestead is at the attempted sale of the homestead a person 65 years of age or older. (CCP § 704.730(a)(3)(A).)

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

PENTECH FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. VS RENE MEDINA

“Section 704.740 is part of the homestead laws. ‘Homestead laws are designed to protect the sanctity of the family home against a loss caused by a forced sale by creditors. . . The homestead exemption ensures that insolvent debtors and their families are not rendered homeless by virtue of an involuntary sale of the residential property they occupy. Thus, the homestead law is not designed to protect creditors. . .

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

DEKEL ZELIG VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL INC

Homestead Savings v. Superior Court (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 494, 498. Any gain in efficiency the Court might make by adjudicating issues not targeted by the motion is outweighed by the unfairness to the defending party who has not been properly notified of the danger of such a ruling. Id. As a result, the Court may not summarily adjudicate claims unless requested in the notice of motion. Id.

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

NATIONAL COMMERCIAL RECOVERY INC. VS. LA PERRA BRAVA PRODUCE

Pursuant to CCP § 704.800(b)(2), this court will issue a new order for sale of the homestead at the next highest bid of $425,000.00.

  • Hearing

    Feb 26, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MARK RODRIGUES VS. NICOLAS STEELE ET. AL.

The application must include a declaration stating whether the records of the county tax assessor indicate that there is a homeowner’s exemption, whether the dwelling is a homestead and the amount of the homestead exemption, and summarizing existing liens and encumbrances. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §704.760. Creditor’s application is supported by the declaration of Amy Nash, which contains the sworn statements required under §704.760.

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

DF & RW, INC., DBA F& W FOODSERVICES VS 3GENCARE, INC., ET AL.

(See Homestead Sav. V. Superior Court (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 494, 498 (providing that the court may not summarily adjudicate claims or defenses as to which no triable issue was raised unless requested in the notice of motion).) CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED. Notice of ruling by moving party.

  • Hearing

    Feb 11, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

DO VS RANDOLPH

App. 3d 961, 974 n. 4; Homestead Savings v. Superior Court (1986) 179 Cal. App. 3d 494, 498. In addition, CRC 3.1350(c) states that a motion for summary judgment and/or adjudication “must” contain and be supported by (1) Notice of motion by moving party; and (2) a separate statement of undisputed material facts in support of moving party’s motion. Here, no proper notice of motion has been filed with this motion. Plaintiff contends that she served two notices of motion, one on 10/18/19 and one on 12/3/19.

  • Hearing

    Feb 10, 2020

CADLES OF WEST VIRGINIA VS. GALE G. WAVRA

“Section 704.740 is part of the homestead laws. ‘Homestead laws are designed to protect the sanctity of the family home against a loss caused by a forced sale by creditors. . . The homestead exemption ensures that insolvent debtors and their families are not rendered homeless by virtue of an involuntary sale of the residential property they occupy. Thus, the homestead law is not designed to protect creditors. . .

  • Hearing

    Feb 10, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

The ‘article’ referred to is article 4, “Homestead Exemption,” sections 704.710 through 704.850.” (Wells Fargo Financial Leasing, Inc. v. D & M Cabinets (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 59, 67.) “Section 704.740 is part of the homestead laws. ‘Homestead laws are designed to protect the sanctity of the family home against a loss caused by a forced sale by creditors ....

  • Hearing

    Feb 05, 2020

LUCIC VS. YODER DEVELOPMENT

App. 3d 961, 974 n. 4; Homestead Savings v. Superior Court (1986) 179 Cal. App. 3d 494, 498. In addition, CRC 3.1350(c) states that a motion for summary judgment and/or adjudication “must” contain and be supported by (1) Notice of motion by moving party; and (2) a separate statement of undisputed material facts in support of moving party’s motion. Here, no notice of motion has been filed with this motion for summary adjudication.

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2020

JOHN DOE ET AL VS DEAN C LOGAN

((See Homestead Sav. v. Superior Court (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 494, 498 [holding that the court may not summarily adjudicate claims as to which no triable issue was raised unless requested in the notice of motion].) Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs’ and Defendant’s respective motions for summary judgment are denied. Defendant is ordered to provide notice of this ruling. DATED: January 24, 2020 ________________________________ Hon. Teresa A.

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

CADLES OF WEST VIRGINIA VS. GALE G. WAVRA

“Section 704.740 is part of the homestead laws. ‘Homestead laws are designed to protect the sanctity of the family home against a loss caused by a forced sale by creditors. . . The homestead exemption ensures that insolvent debtors and their families are not rendered homeless by virtue of an involuntary sale of the residential property they occupy. Thus, the homestead law is not designed to protect creditors. . .

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2020

BLIZZARD ENERGY, INC. V. BERND SCHAEFERS

Schaefers argues that he resides on the Cambria property owned by BKS Cambria, LLC, and that he would be entitled to an automatic homestead exemption if the Court were to be inclined to treat the LLC as his alter ego. He cites no authority and does not explain how the exemption affects the reverse veil piercing analysis. Schaefers also requests a jury trial and discovery to determine whether the granting or denial of this motion would cause an unjust result.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2020

TOVELLA VS. MEGARIT

(Homestead Savings v. Superior Court (1986) 179 Cal. App. 3d 494, 498 [citing Code Civ. Proc. § 1010 (“Homestead”).) The Court has no power to adjudicate others. (Maryland Cas. Co. v. Reeder (1990) 221 Cal. App. 3d 961, 974 n. 4; Homestead, supra, 179 Cal. App. 3d at p. 498.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 16, 2020

CHAYA PRASAD VS PROVIDENT RESOURCES GROUP INC

(See Homestead Savings v. Superior Court (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 494, 498 [“Summary judgment is a device for narrowing issues for trial, not a trap for an unwary opponent. If a party desires adjudication of particular issues or subissues, that party must make its intentions clear in the motion”].) The Declaration of Brenda K.

  • Hearing

    Jan 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 19     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.