What are the Homestead Laws?

Useful Rulings on Homestead Laws

Recent Rulings on Homestead Laws

GEOFFREY BENNETT, AS ATTORNEY IN FACT FOR CLEAVES M. BENNETT, AND AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF THE CLEAVES M. BENNETT LIVING TRUST VS ELIZABETH CHAI-CHANG, ET AL.

u Defendants impounded payments for property taxes on the Maui property, despite a homestead/elder deferment of such taxes by the county, resulting in $33,000 deficit that almost led to foreclosure. (Complaint, ¶ 154.DD.) u Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care to protect Cleaves from financial elder abuse and undue influence. (Complaint, ¶ 154.EE.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CHATELAINE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION VS TERESA MCCLENDON, ET AL

No. 20110585748); (2) April 25, 2011 Homestead Declaration of McClendon (Inst. No. 20110596388); (3) an unsigned order to the Bankruptcy Court dated March 3, 2011 and recorded on April 9, 2015 (Inst. No. 20150389645); (4) January 31, 2013 Assignment of Deed of Trust (Inst. No. 20130160611); (5) January 13, 2016 “Error by Judgment Creditor” document purporting to certify that the address on the writ of execution was erroneous (Inst.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LIONEL A. WYATT VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

Before Trial ¶ 10:88, citing Homestead Sav. V. Sup. Ct. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 494, 498.) To the extent the writ petition could be construed as alleging multiple “sub causes of action” for writ of mandate, Petitioner failed to specify in the notice of motion that Petitioner was moving for summary adjudication of specific claims within the petition.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

THOMAS W LUCZAK VS. RICK SEVERSTON

(8) If the Court accepts creditor's offered fair market value, then the net equity after application of the current homestead exemption and payment of the two liens is approximately $118,929. If the Court accepts debtor's fair market value, then the net equity after application of the current homestead exemption and payment of the two liens is approximately $23,929.

  • Hearing

RITA BOGHAIRI VS. ASARO, KEAGY, FREELAND & MCKINLEY, LLP

CCP § 704.710(c) ("'Homestead' means the principal dwelling (1) in which the judgment debtor ... resided on the date the judgment creditor's lien attached to the dwelling, and (2) in which the judgment debtor ... resided continuously thereafter until the date of the court determination that the dwelling is a homestead.").

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

RITA BOGHAIRI VS. ASARO, KEAGY, FREELAND & MCKINLEY, LLP

CCP § 704.710(c) ("'Homestead' means the principal dwelling (1) in which the judgment debtor ... resided on the date the judgment creditor's lien attached to the dwelling, and (2) in which the judgment debtor ... resided continuously thereafter until the date of the court determination that the dwelling is a homestead.").

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

THE BEST SERVICE CO. VS MITSUMASA OKAMOTO-ET AL

owns no interest in the homestead or whose only interest in the homestead is a community property interest with the judgment debtor. (3) One hundred seventy-five thousand dollars ($175,000) if the judgment debtor or spouse of the judgment debtor who resides in the homestead is at the time of the attempted sale of the homestead any one of the following: (A) A person 65 years of age or older.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MARIA VAQUERANO, ET AL. VS. VERA SIEGERT, ET AL.

(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 the amount stated in the application. (b) The court shall determine whether the dwelling is exempt. If the court determines that the dwelling is exempt, the court shall determine the amount of the homestead exemption and the fair market value of the dwelling.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

BALBOA CAPITAL CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS SAMVEL GUKASYAN

(b) A statement, which may be based on information and belief, whether the dwelling is a homestead and the amount of the homestead exemption, if any, and a statement whether or not the records of the county recorder indicate that a homestead declaration under Article 5 (commencing with Section 704.910) that describes the dwelling has been recorded by the judgment debtor or the spouse of the judgment debtor.

  • Hearing

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MELVYN J. BERNIE, ET AL. VS ELSA RAMIREZ

A homestead is exempt from sale to satisfy a money judgment if it cannot be sold for an amount exceeding the amount of the homestead exemption plus the amount necessary to satisfy all liens and encumbrances on the property senior to and not including the judgment at issue. (Bratcher v. Buckner (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1177, 1186.) The homestead exemption is $75,000 unless the judgment debtor shows entitlement to a greater exemption by a declaration. (Code Civ.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

HINSON VS. BRANDYBERRY

(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.) Sixth COA - Issue 6 The sixth cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty is brought against Brandyberry and Travis.

  • Hearing

RITA BOGHAIRI VS. ASARO, KEAGY, FREELAND & MCKINLEY, LLP

Thus, Boghairi would have the burden of proving the subject dwelling is a homestead. Code Civ. Proc. § 704.780(a)(1). The record indicates the judgment creditor provided adequate notice and service on Boghairi and the occupant. ROA ## 319-320. The Court also gave notice of the rescheduled hearing. ROA # 325. Boghairi has not filed a response to the order to show cause. Thus, it appears she cannot meet her burden.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

RITA BOGHAIRI VS. ASARO, KEAGY, FREELAND & MCKINLEY, LLP

Thus, Boghairi would have the burden of proving the subject dwelling is a homestead. Code Civ. Proc. § 704.780(a)(1). The record indicates the judgment creditor provided adequate notice and service on Boghairi and the occupant. ROA ## 319-320. The Court also gave notice of the rescheduled hearing. ROA # 325. Boghairi has not filed a response to the order to show cause. Thus, it appears she cannot meet her burden.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MELVYN J. BERNIE, ET AL. VS SUZZANE EDMEIER, ET AL.

After Defendant received the order to show cause why order for sale should not be made, she researched homestead exemption and learned that she would receive homestead protection in the amount of $75,000. (Id. at p. 2.) Defendant therefore decided to transfer 50 percent of the Property to her ex-husband so he would receive 50 percent of the homestead funds, to repay him for the $35,000 loan. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

BMO HARRIS BANK N.A., FOR ITSELF AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO GE CAPITAL COMMERCIAL INC., GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL CORPORA VS DAWEI XIAO, ET AL.

., concerning the interplay between attachment law and the homestead exemption), but it is unclear whether Xiao seeks to claim a homestead exemption in the Real Property. Whether Xiao is entitled to a homestead exemption in the Real Property is determined in post-judgment proceedings and does not mean that a writ of attachment cannot issue and be recorded against the Real Property. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 487.025, subd. (a).)

  • Hearing

HUANG VS GOLD MEDAL REALTY AND MORTGAGE CORP

Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2020) at ¶ 10:88 (citing Homestead Savings v. Superior Court (1986) 179 Cal. App. 3d 494, 498). As disputed facts exist supporting the validity of the first cause of action, the Motion for summary judgment is denied in total and it is not necessary for the court to address the remaining causes of action.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MANCIA V. WRIGHT

Since there are no liens or encumbrances on the Subject Property, except for outstanding property taxes, the value of the Subject Property exceeds the Homestead Exemption and the Subject Property may be sold. The Court does not consider Defendant’s argument that the Property cannot be sold unless a bid that is 90% of its appraised value is obtained since that matter is premature. (And see also Code Civ. Proc. § 701.590(b) and Comment thereto; Cal. Prac.

  • Hearing

RADOVIC MILOSEVIC

Defendant claims a $75,000.00 homestead exemption under CCP § 704.730(a). He declares under penalty of perjury that the property is his home, primary dwelling, and main source of income. See the Declaration of Slavisa Milosevic at ¶ 30. This is sufficient to meet his burden of demonstrating that the property is exempt from attachment. See Cal. Code Civ. P. § 484.070(g); Broadway Foreclosure Investments, LLC v. Tarlesson (2010) 184 Cal. App. 4th 931, 939. Plaintiff provides no contrary evidence.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

BALBOA CAPITAL CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS SAMVEL GUKASYAN

(b) A statement, which may be based on information and belief, whether the dwelling is a homestead and the amount of the homestead exemption, if any, and a statement whether or not the records of the county recorder indicate that a homestead declaration under Article 5 (commencing with Section 704.910) that describes the dwelling has been recorded by the judgment debtor or the spouse of the judgment debtor.

  • Hearing

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

WEISSENBERG VS. CARQUINEZ WOMEN’S CLUB

Plaintiff slipped and fell on a patio step at Cross-Defendants’ wedding at the Old Homestead in Crockett, California (the “Property”). Plaintiff sued Defendant Carquinez Women’s Club (“CWC”), which owns the Property and operates it as an event venue. CWC cross-complained against Cross- Defendants for breach of contract - insurance; breach of contract - indemnity; equitable indemnity; apportionment; and declaratory relief regarding an alleged duty to indemnify and duty to defend.

  • Hearing

RIO MESA HOLDINGS, LLC V. FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE

Homestead Ins. Co. (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1459, 1469; Civ. Code § 1636.) Also, “[a]n endorsement modifies the basic insuring forms of the policy and is an integral part of the policy.” (Frontier Oil Corp. v. RLI Ins. Co. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1436, 1463.) Where the meaning of contractual language is in dispute, the trial court first examines relevant extrinsic evidence of whether the instrument is reasonably susceptible to the meaning advanced. (Wolf v.

  • Hearing

JEFF CLEVELAND, ET AL. VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

Southern California Edison Company MOTION FOR SEVERANCE Moving Party: Cross-Defendant S&C Electric Company Responding Party: Defendant and Cross-Complainant Southern California Edison Company RELIEF REQUESTED: Order severing the Cross-Complaints of defendant Southern California Edison Company FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND: Plaintiffs Jeff Cleveland and Nancy Cleveland allege that they are property owners who owned a homestead with over 30 acres cultivated for commercial trees.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

DEBORAH VAUGHN VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

(Homestead Sav. v. Superior Court (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 494, 498.) Defendant Judith A. Vidor failed to request summary adjudication as an alternative to summary judgment. The Court cannot grant summary adjudication as to Plaintiff’s cause of action based on Government Code section 835 in favor of Defendant Judith A. Vidor because Defendant Judith A. Vidor has not asked for adjudication of this cause of action.

  • Hearing

PAWNEE LEASING VS CR EXPRESS HEARING ON RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER/ ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF ATTACHMENT

While the accuracy of this appraisal is not certain, it appears that there is no equity in the property since the total of the homestead exemption and liens ($714,430) is approximately $100,000 more than the appraised value. As such, the homestead property is exempt from the attachment order.

  • Hearing

CERDA V. CATAMOUNT PROPERTIES 2018, LLC

Code, § 2924; Homestead Savings v. Darmiento, supra, 230 Cal.App.3d at p. 431.) (Moeller v. Lien (1994) 25 Cal. App. 4th 822, 831–32, emphasis added.) As currently plead, there are no allegations in the Complaint that can be construed to overcome the Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale [Exhibit 1], and it appears Defendant is a bona fide purchaser. Plaintiffs have not opposed this motion, and thus, there is no showing that they can allege facts to overcome the presumption.

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 20     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.