Preview
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2020 01:39 PM INDEX NO. 611202/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2020
"V"
EXHIBIT
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2020 01:39 PM INDEX NO. 611202/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 27 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/24/201
Document drafted by and
'RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC
1600 South Douglass Road, Suite 200-A
Anaheim, California 92806
LIMITED POWER OF ATTORNEY
Stanwich Mortgage Loan Trust A (the "Trust"), by and through Wilmiagian Savings Fund
Society, FSB d/b/a Christiana Trust, and having an office at 500 Delaware Avenue 11th Floor,
Wilmington, Delaware 19801, Attention: Corporate Trust- Stanwich Mortgage Loan Trust A, not
in its individual capacity but solely as UTI Trustee ("UTI Tmstee"), hereby constitutes and
appoints Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC, ("Servicer"), and in its name, aforesaid Attorney-
In-Fact, by and through any officer appointed by the Board of Directors of Servicer, to execute
and acknowledge in writing or by facsimile stamp all documents customarily and reasonably
necessary and appropriate for the tasks described in the items (1) through (5) below; provided
however, that the documents described below may only be executed and delivered by such
Attorneys-In-·Fact if such documents are required or permined under the terms of the Servicing
and Custodial Agreement, dated as of August II, 2015 (the "Servicing and Custodial
Agreement") for the respective Trust listed on the attached §steduk A. among Stanwich
Mortgage Acquisition Company IV, LLC, as initial beneficiary (the "Initial Beneficiary"),
Carrington Capital Management L.L.C. as mortgage eimi e+cr (the "Mortgage
Administrator"), Servicer, as servicer, Stanwich Mortgage Loan Trust A, as owner (the
"Owner"), UTI Trustee, and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as custodian and paying .agent (the
"Costodlan") as supplemented on or more SUBI Supplements (as defined in the Servicing and
Custodial Agreement) and no power is granted hereunder to take any action that would be
adverse to the interests of Winnington Savings Fund Society, FSB d/b/a Christiana Trust. This
Limited Power of Attomey is being issued in connection with Servicer's responsibilities to
service certain mortgage loans (the "Loans") and related Properties (as defined below) held by
Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB d/b/a Christiana Trust, as UTI Trustee. These Loans are
secured by collateral comprised of Mortgages, Deeds of Trust, Deeds to Secure Debt and other
fonns of security instromcats (collecdvely the "Security Instruments") encumbering any and all
real and personal property delineated therein (the "Property") and the Notes secured thereby.
1. Domand, sue for, recover, collect and receive each and every sum of money, debt,
account and interest (which now is, or hereafter shall become due and payable) belonging
to or claimed by Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB d/b/a Christiana Tmut, as UTI
Trustee, and to use or take any lawfW means for recovery by legal process or otherwise,
including but not limited to th. substitution of trustee serving under a Dced of Trust, the
preparation and issuance of statements of breach, notices of default. and/or notices of
sale, taking deeds in licu of foreclosure, evicting (to the extem allowed by federal, state
or local laws) and foreclosing on the properties under the Security instmments.
Document Nun foer: 2016000027910 Page: 2 of 6
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2020 01:39 PM INDEX NO. 611202/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 27 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/24/201!
2. Execute and/or file such doct-ms and talm such other action as is proper and necessary
to defend Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB d/b/a Christiana Trust, as UTI Trustee
in litigation and resolve any litigation where the Servicer has an obligation to defend
Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB d/b/a Christiana Trust, as UTI Trustee.
3. Transact businessof any kind regarding the Loans and the Properties, as Wilmington
Savings Fund Society, FSB d/b/a Christisñâ Trust, as UTI Trustee's act and deed, to
contract for, purchase, lease, receive and take possession and evidence of title in and to
the Property and/or to secure payment of a promissory note or performance of any
obligation or agreement relating thereto.
4. Execute bonds, notes, mortgages, deeds of trust and other contracts, agreemems and
instruments mgarding the borrowers and/or the Property, including but not limited to the
execution of releases, sa'ishdens, assignments, loan modification agreements, loan
assumption agreements, subordination agiccmcats, propetty adjustment agreements, and
other instruments pertainirtg to mortgages or deeds of trust, bills of sale and execution of
deeds and associated and related instrurnents and documents necessary, if any, conveying
or encumbering the Property or to effect the conveyance or release of an encumbrance on
the Property, in the interest of Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB d/b/a Christiana
Trust, as UTI Trustee.
5, Endorse on behalf of the undersigned all checks, drafts and/or other negotiable
instruments made payable to the undersigned.
Icothing contained herein shall (i) limit in any manner any indemnification provided be the
Scrucer to the UTI Tnr:tee under the Servicing and Costodla! Agreement, any applit.+le M'BI
4uprtements or the Tit)!ng Trust Agreement (as defmed in the Servicing and •. ustadial
.greemem), er rit, be construed to grant the Servicer the power to initiate or defend any suit,
lidgation i r pmceeding in the name of Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB d,b/a ans*íana
Trtist in its individual capacity. if the Servicer receives any notice of suit, litigatio cr
proceeding in the none of Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB d‰ Chrisdana irust in i•s
indh idual capacity. then the Servicer shall promptly forward a copy of same to 0lmington
savings Fund Society, FSB d/b/a Christiana T rust, in accordance with the notice pre nlons of
the Servicing and Custodial Agreement or the Supplements.
This Limited Power of Attorney is not intended to extend the powers granted to the Servicer
under the Servicing and Agreement or the Supplements or to allow the Servicer to take
.n: acti-m with resp- a to Security Instruments or promissory notes (or other evidence of
indJtedness) not cuthorized by the Servicing and Custodlal Agreement or the Supplements.
Servicer hereby agrees to indemnify and hold Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB d/b/o
Christiana Trust, as UTITrustee, and its directors, officers, employees and agents bannless from
and against any and all liabilities, obligations, losses, damages, penalties, actions, judgments,
suits, costs, expenses or disbursements of any kind or nature wharsoever incurred by reason or
result of the exercise by the Servicer of the powers specifically granted to it under the wrvicmg
and Custodial Agreement or the Supplements. The foregoing indemmty shall survive the
Document Number: 2016000027910 Page 3 of 6
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2020 01:39 PM INDEX NO. 611202/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 27 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/24/201
ter=!cation of this Limited Power of Attomey and the Servicing and Custodial Agreement or the
Supplements or the earlier resignation or removal of Wilmiñgics Savings Fund Society, FSB
d/b/a Christiana Trust, as UTT Trustee under the Servicing and Custodial Agreement or the
Supplements.
Qf-
Witness my hand and seal this c2 day of brt , 2015.
NO CORPORATE SEAL On Behalf of the Trust, by
Wilmington Savings Fund Society,
FSB d/b/a Christiana Trust, not in
its individual capacity, but solely
as Trustee
Witne : Jason B. Hill Name: Michael G. fler
Wimeas: Donna Lockerman
Attest: Cedric L. Strother , Trust Officer
CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of Delaware
County of New Castle
On this 23 day of _Sgpterakgr , 201S. betbre me, the under p:d, a Notary Public in and ror said
County and State, personally appeared fivinel u OJJsdr._, and Cedric L. Spothen.
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the persons
who executed the within instrument as Vice President and Trust Onicer of Wilmington Savings
Fund Society, FSB d/b/a Christiana Trust, and ackr.ow:cdged to me that such national
banking
association executed the within instnunent pursuant to its by4aws or a resolution of its Board of
Directors.
WIINESS my hand and official sea
Signature:
Vy c mmission expires
NOTARYPUBUC.STATEOF DELAWARE
MY COMMtSSIONEXP1RES
AUGUSTW 318
20183000: Paqe- 4 of 6
Document Number: . 910
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2020 01:39 PM INDEX NO. 611202/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2020
NYSCEF DOC . NO . 27 RECEIVED NYS CEF: 10 / 2 4 / 2 01
KtiEDULE A
5tanwich Mortgage Loan Trust A
Docurnent Nurnber: 201600CJ27910 Page: 5 of 6
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2020 01:39 PM INDEX NO. 611202/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2020
NYSCEF DOC. No. 27 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/24/20
THISIS A CERTIFIEDCOPYOFTHE COUNTYCLERMaECOROEM
RECORDIFIT BEARSTHE SEAL,AND
SIGNATUREOFTHEORANGE
COUNWCt.ERK-RECORDER.
. 6/6/2016
n
CERTlRCATIONFEE _6.00 - g , ORANGECOUNTY
STATEOFCALIFORNIA
Document Number: 2016000027910 Page: 6 of 6
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2020 01:39 PM INDEX NO. 611202/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2020
"W"
EXHIBIT
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2020 01:39 PM INDEX NO. 611202/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/24/202
PrenarettSve
CatherineGdffith
lianison,Mclaughlin & Assoalates,PLLC
70f lfighlanderBlvdo Suite.270
Arilngton,Texas76015
Reypt,, ,, , ,
Roach and Un, P.C.
6901 Jericho Tpke, Suite 240
Syosset, NY 11791
SpeeA6oveThis
Ilae lbrRecordcr'sUse
ASSIGNMENT OF MORTGAGE
FOR VALUE RECBIVED, the undersigned holder of a Mortgage, CAPITAL ONE. N.A., AS
SUCC ESSOR By Merger To ING Bank, FSB, whose address is 1680 Capital One Drive,
Melean, VA 22102 (hereinafter, "Assignor"), does hereby grant, sell, assign, transfer and convey
unto Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, As Trustee Of Stanwich Mortgage Loan Trust
A, whose address is 1600 South Douglass Road, Sutte 200-A, Anaheim, CA 92806 (hereinafter,
"Assignee"), all beñcficial interest under that certain Mortgage described below, together with the
note(s) and obligations therein described and the rnoney due and to become due thereon with
interest and all rights accrued or to accrueunder said Mortgage.
Original Leader: ING BANK, FSB
Borrower(s): Lisa Mohrman
Date of Deed of Mortgage: 6/12/2006
Original Loan Amount: $300,000.00
Property Address: 20 Martin Rd
East Quogne, NY 11942
A"
Legal Description: See attached "Exhibit
Recorded in Suffolk County New York on 7/6/2006, at'fb¤M!‡339; Page 608
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2020 01:39 PM INDEX NO. 611202/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2020
NYSCEF DOC. No. 30 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/24/201
IN V/ITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be exwuisd as a sealed
instrument by its proper officer.
Executed on: E 2 6 28
Capital One. N.A., As Successor By Merger Te
Ing Bank, Feb
By: Carrington Mortgage
as Attorney-in-Fact for Assignor
By:
Prit ed Name: habeth A.0demann
Its: vicePastiten4Carringtonsettgagesenlagilc
SECTION 275: This assignment is not subject to the requirements of Section 275 of the Real
Property Law because it is an assignment within the sec^ndary mortgage market.
Section: 384.00
Block: 02.00
Lot: 030.000
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF_ . _ _ _ ___ }
} as
COUNTY OF ... - }
On.. __ _ _ _ __.... befo v me _ __. a Notary Public in and for
said County and State, personally scared ---.- -who
proved to me on the basis of setL setmy evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are
subscribed to the within instrument an acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same
in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), at that by his/her/their signature(s) on theiratmment the
or the entity upon behalf of whi • the
person(s), person(s) acted, executed thei::s‡mment.
SEE a ½CHED
WTTNESS my hand and official seal. (SEAL)
--
NOTARY SIGNATURE
Printed Name:
My Commission Expires: _.
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2020 01:39 PM INDEX NO. 611202/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2020
NYSCE F DOC. NO. 30 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/24/20:
EXHIB1T A
APN: 0900-384.000-0002-030.000
Loan Number:
ALL that certain plot, piece or percel of land, with the bullidings and
improvements thereon erected, situate, lying and being near East Q uogue
(unincorporated area), Town of Southampton, County of Suffolk and State of
New York, known and designated as Lot Number 195 upon a certain map
entitled "Subdivision Map,Section 1, Shinnecook Shores, situate at Pine Neck
Near East Quague Town of Southampton, Suffolk County, N.Y., surveyed by
N.Y."
Theodored F. Squires, Ucsr,5sd Land Surveyors, Southampton, and filed
In the Office of the Clerk of Suffolk County on March 19, 1953 under the filed
map number 2040 and being more fully bounded and desc#ed acccitiiñg to
said map as follows:
BEGINNING at a point on the westerly side of Marlin Road distant 652.50 feet
southerly from the northerly end of a curve connecting the said westerly sfde of
Marlin Road with the southerly side of Shinnecook Road as measured along the
said westerly side of Marlin Road as shown upon the foresaid map;
RUNNING THENCE south 12 degrees 57 minutes 50 s=cer-ds west along the
westerly side of Marlin Road, 75 feet;
THENCE north 77 degrees D2 minutes 10 ascords west, 150 feet
THENCE north 12 degrees 57 minutes 60 seconds east 75 feet
THENCE south 77 degrees D2 minutes 10 seconds east 150 feet to the westerly
side of Mariln Road, the point or place of BEGINNING.
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2020 01:39 PM INDEX NO. 611202/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/2 4 /.
A nqtatypublic or other omcer compledng Îhis
certificate vermes only the identity of die indlyldual
who signed the document. to which this certificate is
".inds"t/‡J"""""""" -
CALIFORNIA ALL - PURPOSE
J
CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of California
County of Orange
On DFP. n pnts before me, Judit Sauoedo, Notary Public, personally appeared,
Elizabeth A. Ostermann, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s)
whose name(s) is/are-subscribed to the within instrument and s'mandged to me that he/she/éey
execu*~f the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/eelr signaturc(s) on the
instrumentthe person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I cettify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the f:sgohs
paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS a in d and official seal, Juorrsauceco
NotaryPutr<~Cattonsta
.....-- OrangeCounty
Comestiniott
27185156
Signature .. . - . (Seal)
Mar2/.202)
MyCottunJmgires
ADDITIONAL OPTIONAL INFORMATION
IXVIRW. TIONS I OR COMPLE11% •His FOR.Nf
DESCRTPTIONOF THE ATTACMED DOCL%fENT •. r. :. ^* · ·•-i . •- . * • -•
; It fu • • f *•'7t'AsiWst\n
t F ..,,r *,.• i.·•m•nethe.. ..nedev.. .* * .'.• a.g..•r Mr •:es
,•.se. ,*
t t |HidL 1 • WI. 13t1011He88beUteN%|w JimL, s31f't.grf ghtdW5ithe.a
1
O(r spe-
.S.©tignlag _ DNunldill D•d ... * 933)per , elly spranviller..r amnat.istpt..6 i s a Itt.•. e.!ggue.o
. no..t-a..,as,. s,n,..i w dw,w,am .- wom. .w, w c,,cmawim
annst ahisbedeSame dase
t4.eacitriochdymesd
toc -ang4eted
t -tddit. sisal'ons.anent • 1henolan'publnirantgaintr tusvt ing4un* M it .,, r*n oilrmhaser her
t astllil5Y.5'm r by2t •'·ttP itl ·enUSf3l"
·•*'A habI • Ltst)5d.vt.s';
+ .nu * seteof docunne: oracatu ' prapeG , , r i o inw - ,
14138
P241stW
A)*ACITY CE.ALht O BY TF. ICiSER
le, te a w >. ost-i he. •ect. n Pu,ir o st I she c, st
indh'icittal (#*) me.stio m h. t mscuest.at--fd. onwer ut -
C ConmrareOmeer • T3* * 6 • 4 m v a * · aN b v alt4id· ' W r: I e'aedde
fu , e.a a n ..t env .4 - ! --sit .st. , u...I3uss yr .ct1sea
h .aw 4,,n *• ®- • t'ter a' • .r*I loitmiedgos..' fonti
. .., , * t !- * - , *, . ' · .e
PattitartQ 31, e . t Alewint.es- si(,ceed
g ,, ,..,
AUCI)WIT-111-Fite( + Ad 4tearla.urantiatient st ri. regiised6istcondaincipto en.o+isu,
TnlWesHhl adamele,lyeeuru notmetavdorainclied 19nAmilemend
dnunwal
Ollidt - + h.cas.·t c - rt,atstatuehfJ.hn tra tr • ber L .rt I da
- -- -- + : do v Ne g·. ,,,ned(n thebgoceNne i ...stedstp.m a a
cot.wars*oG a-' isticise (EO f.PC¼termrv)
et is 'sc.src
Related Content
in Suffolk County
Ruling
KEITH HERNANDEZ VS DANIEL LOPEZ, ET AL.
Jul 09, 2024 |
24NWCV00960
Case Number:
24NWCV00960
Hearing Date:
July 9, 2024
Dept:
C
Hernandez v. Lopez, et al., Case No. 24NWCV00960
This is an unlawful detainer action. Defendants Daniel Lopez and Nidelvia Yah move ex parte to vacate and set aside the default and default judgment entered against them on June 17, 2024, quash any writ, and stay the execution in the instant case.
On April 11, 2024, Defendants demurred to the complaint.
On May 31, 2024, Defendants answered.
On June 4, 2024, the Court overruled Defendants demurrer.
Because Defendants both demurred and answered, the motion for default is vacated and the ex parte motion is MOOT.
Ruling
GARCIA vs STAMP
Jul 12, 2024 |
CVRI2303859
MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY
JUDGMENT OF PARTITION BY SALE
CVRI2303859 GARCIA VS STAMP
AND APPOINTMENT OF PARTITION
REFEREE BY KIMBERLY STAMP
Tentative Ruling: Defendant’s Motion for Interlocutory Judgment and Appointment of Referee is
denied.
Defendant seeks an interlocutory judgment for partition under CCP § 872.720. However, a
regularly noticed motion is not the appropriate procedural mechanism for said relief. The right to
a partition is determined at trial. CCP § 872.710(a). “No partition can be had until the interests of
all the parties have been ascertained and settled by a trial.” Bacon v. Wahrhaftig (1950) 97
Cal.App.2d 599, 603. “If the court finds that the plaintiff is entitled to partition, it shall make an
interlocutory judgment that determines the interest of the parties in the property and orders the
partition of the property and, unless it is to be later determined, the manner of partition.” CCP §
872.720(a).
Here, trial in this matter has not been conducted. There has been no motion for summary
judgment heard. The Court has not yet determined at trial or summary judgment that there is a
right to partition. Defendant treats this motion as a dispositive motion where none exists. Under
CCP § 872.030, the rules of civil procedure apply to partition actions unless they are inconsistent
with the partition statutes. As such, it is procedurally improper for the court to issue an order for
partition through a regularly noticed “motion.” Defendant has provided no authority, other than
singled out partition statutes, that nonetheless precludes a motion for such an interlocutory
judgment.
3.
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION AGAINST KLEIN
CVRI2305855 HEWITT VS KLEIN DEFENDANTS AND TO APPOINT
PROVISIONSAL CORPORATE
DIRECTOR
Tentative Ruling: In light of Defendant’s conduct June 24-26, Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary
Injunction is granted; the injunction shall follow the restrictions delineated in the June 28th
Temporary Restraining Order.
Motion for Provisional Director to run the Corporation is granted; Each party is to submit a list of
three names subject to Corp. C. §308(c).
A motion for preliminary injunction must show (1) a probability of prevailing on the merits, and (2)
that the balance of hardships favors issuance of the injunction. (O’Connell v. Superior Court
(2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1463.) However, “[t]he applicant must demonstrate a real threat of
immediate and irreparable injury.” (Triple A. Machine Shop, Inc. v. State of California (1989) 213
Cal.App.3d 131, 138.)
“[A]n injunction is an unusual or extraordinary equitable remedy which will not be granted if the
remedy at law (usually damages) will adequately compensate the injured plaintiff.” (Department
of Fish & Game v. Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 1554, 1565
(quoting Witkin).) Plaintiff merely argues that his ownership interest has been devalued—but fails
to explain why that cannot be compensated with damages. Nor does the 14th-15th causes of
action support an injunction as the UCL claim seeks restitution and declaratory relief is another
form of equitable relief.
The 11th cause of action (Corporations Code §308) and the 16th cause of action (corporate
dissolution). Under Corporations Code §1800(a), 50% or more of the directors in office, or a
shareholder who holds shares representing not less than 33.3% of outstanding shares, or any
shareholder if the ground for dissolution is that the period for which the corporation was formed
has terminated without extension, or any person expressly authorized to do so in the articles of
incorporation may file a complaint for involuntary dissolution. The grounds for involuntary
dissolution are that the corporation has abandoned its business for more than one year, the
corporation has an even number of directors who are equally divided and cannot agree to the
management of its affairs, there is internal dissension and two or more factions of shareholders
in the corporation are deadlocked such that the business can no longer be conducted, those in
control are guilty or have engaged in persistent and pervasive fraud, mismanagement or abuse
of authority or waste, in corporations with 35 of fewer shareholders, liquidation is reasonably
necessary for the protection of the rights or interests of the complaining shareholder(s), or the
period for which the corporation has formed has terminated without extension of such period.
(Corp. C. §1800(b).) After hearing, the court may grant orders or injunctions as justice and equity
requires. (Corp. C. §1804.)
Plaintiff is a shareholder of at least 33.3%. While the parties dispute whether or not Plaintiff sold
an interest of 4%, that remains that he still has at least a 33.3% share. The next issue is grounds
for involuntary dissolution. Plaintiff has asserted all the statutory grounds but the last. (FAC ¶195-
198.)
The issue here is the formation process of the corporation. To start, the articles of incorporation
must be personally signed by each of the incorporator, and each initial director (if any) along with
a duly acknowledgment. (Corp. C. §§ 17.1, 149, 200.) The articles do not require the initial
directors to be named. (Corp. C. §204.) If the articles do not identify the number of directors, the
corporation must adopt bylaws that specify the number of directors. (Corp. C. § 212(a).) In this
situation, the incorporators must adopt the bylaws and designate the directors prior to the first
meeting of the board of directors. (Friedman, California Practice Guide: Corporations §§4:398
(Rutter Group 2023).)
The articles of incorporation have not been provided. The only evidence of its existence is
attached to the original verified complaint—but even then, it is the electronic filing certificate
indicating a filing date of 1/31/22. It is unclear if there is a signed version. Plaintiff states that
there was no meeting for the articles or bylaws, and was unaware of the copy of the bylaws.
(Plaintiff’s Decl. ¶18-21.) Defendant Wesley states that he discussed with Plaintiff the corporate
directors, and advised Landis to name Plaintiffs and Defendants as directors on the statement of
information. (Wesley Decl. ¶7.) A corporation must file within 90 days after filing of the original
articles and annually therefore, information about the corporation. (Corp. C. §1502.)
But, he provides no information as to how the bylaws were approved—only a conclusory
statement of discussions. The bylaws provided by Wesley are confusing. First, it states that it
amends and restates the bylaws of the unincorporated association of the dispensary created on
8/19/16. (Wesley Decl., Ex. E.) At the top heading of each page, it states “Last updated May 5,
2021” but was then effective 5/5/21 by Wesley, but a document history indicates that the
agreement was not e-signed and completed until 1/21/22. The articles were not effective until
1/31/22, so bylaws were created before the articles were submitted to the Secretary of State. It
is not until the filing date of the articles that the corporation begins to exist. (Corp. C. §200(c).)
Thus, it is unclear how the bylaws were created before the corporation existed. At this point, it
appears that there are no valid directors for the corporation.
Under Corporation Code §308(b), if shareholders are deadlocked such that directors cannot be
elected, upon petition of a shareholder holding 50% of the voting power may petition the court to
appoint a provisional director or directors. A provisional director is neither a shareholder nor
creditor of the corporation. (Corp. C. §308(c).) Here, appearing to the court to be the most
appropriate remedy as it is akin to a receiver. Both sides accuse each other of wrong doing. On
the one hand, Plaintiff has provided evidence that Wesley is interfering in daily business
operations. On the other hand, Defendant has provided evidence that under Plaintiff’s operation,
there were outstanding taxes and evidence of some financial accounting issues—even if a full
audit is not performed.
Plaintiff points to Corporations Code §2003, which provides: “When the identity of the directors or
their right to hold office is in doubt, or if they are dead or unable to act, or they fail or refuse to act
or their whereabouts cannot be ascertained, any interested person may petition the superior court
of the proper county to determine the identity of the directors or, if there are no directors, to appoint
directors to wind up the affairs of the corporation, after hearing upon such notice to such persons
as the court may direct.” However, the court has yet to order dissolution. This is premature.
The court finds the most appropriate remedy is to appoint a provisional director. The parties
should each submit a list of three persons to act as the proposed provisional director.
Ruling
William Shaw vs Ruth Shaw
Jul 14, 2024 |
23CV02548
23CV02548
SHAW v. SHAW
(UNOPPOSED) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO APPOINT PARTITION REFEREE
The unopposed motion is granted. Mr. Singer will be appointed as the partition referee.
Notice to prevailing parties: Local Rule 2.10.01 requires you to submit a proposed formal order
incorporating, verbatim, the language of any tentative ruling – or attaching and incorporating the
tentative by reference - or an order consistent with the announced ruling of the Court, in
accordance with California Rule of Court 3.1312. Such proposed order is required even if the
prevailing party submitted a proposed order prior to the hearing (unless the tentative is
simply to “grant”). Failure to comply with Local Rule 2.10.01 may result in the imposition of
sanctions following an order to show cause hearing, if a proposed order is not timely filed.
Case No. 19CV02702
RHOADS v. BECKLEY
APPLICATION FOR ORDER FOR SALE OF DWELLING/OSC FOR SALE OF
DWELLING
This application is continued as discussed below.
The original application, brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 704.740
through 704.850, was filed on January 26, 2023. For a variety of reasons, the application was
continued and not ruled upon. When the application was filed, Mr. Beckley was without counsel
and the court noted procedural as well as notice issues with the application, resulting in
continuances. Mr. Beckley then retained counsel, Thornton Davidson, on June 29, 2023.
Mr. Davidson sought to be relieved as counsel on May 8, 2024. The declaration in
support of Mr. Davidson’s motion to be relieved noted the next court date as June 11, 2024. The
court issued a tentative ruling the day before the June 11 hearing, tentatively granting the motion
to be relieved and specifically continuing the application for sale of dwelling to allow defendant
to either retain new counsel or participate in a pro per capacity. The parties were ordered to
appear. At the June 11 hearing, attended by Mr. Davidson and plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. Eschen,
Page 1 of 2
the court granted Mr. Davidson’s motion to be relieved and set July 11, 2024 as the next hearing
date. Mr. Beckley did not attend the June 11, 2024 hearing, nor is there evidence before the court
that he was notified of the July 11, 2024 date. The order prepared by Mr. Davidson after the
hearing and served on Mr. Beckley stated that the tentative ruling became the order of the court.
While the order attached the tentative ruling, there is no mention in either the order or the
tentative ruling of the July 11, 2024 hearing date for the application. The tentative ruling
specified that the application hearing would be set at the next court date.
The court will issue an order to show cause pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section
704.770, subdivision (a). “After the judgment creditor has filed an application for an order for
sale, the court sets a time and place for hearing and must order the judgment debtor to show
cause why an order for sale should not be made in accordance with the application. The hearing
must be set no later than 45 days after the application is filed, or such later time as the court
orders on a showing of good cause.” (2 MB Practice Guide: CA Debt Collection 17.36 (2024).)
After the OSC is set, Mr. Rhoads must serve on the judgment debtor, Mr. Beckley, a copy of the
OSC, a copy of the application, and a copy of the notice of hearing in the form required by the
Judicial Council. (See Code of Civ. Proc. § 704.770, subd. (b).)
Page 2 of 2
Ruling
Andrew Muray et al vs Karen Lantz et al
For Plaintiffs Andrew Muray and Kerri Marshall: Richard I. Wideman
For Defendants Karen Lantz and Andrew Farkas: James B. Devine
RULING
For the reasons set forth below, a preliminary injunction will issue pending final determination of this action or further order of the Court.
Background
This action commenced on May 29, 2024, by the filing of the complaint by Plaintiffs Andrew Muray and Kerri Marshall against Defendants Karen Lantz and Andrew Farkas. The complaint is for injunction and damages for forcible entry and trespass, self-help, and quiet title based on adverse possession.
As alleged in the complaint:
Plaintiffs are the owners of real property known as 922 Roble Lane in Santa Barbara. Defendants are the owners of real property known as 916 Roble Lane in Santa Barbara, adjacent to Plaintiffs’ property.
On May 20, 2024, while Plaintiffs were away from their property, Defendants used bulldozers and other heavy construction equipment to remove a portion of Plaintiffs’ property, claiming that that portion of Plaintiffs’ property trespassed on Defendants’ property. Defendants removed a portion of the balcony, fencing, and foundation footings that had been present for approximately 40 years.
Sometime between 1979 and 1982, the prior owners of Plaintiffs’ property had made permitted additions to the property including the potions removed by Defendants. Defendants plan to construct improvements on the property including the area formerly occupied by the portions of Plaintiffs’ property that was removed by Defendants.
On June 7, 2024, Plaintiffs were granted a temporary restraining order prohibiting Defendants from entering onto or constructing any improvements on property that Plaintiffs claim was formerly occupied by 922 Roble Lane prior to Defendants’ removal of the wall, portions of the balcony, and footings. At that time, the current order to show cause re: preliminary injunction was scheduled.
Analysis
As an initial matter, all of Defendants’ evidentiary objections are overruled. The Court notes that, other than the photographs, maps, and plans (which are sufficiently authenticated), none of the statements objected to have any bearing on the Court’s ruling. Also, Defendants themselves have submitted photographs, maps, and plans showing substantially similar conditions of the disputed property. Likewise, Plaintiffs’ objections to Defendants’ statements and evidence are overruled.
“A preliminary injunction may be granted at any time before judgment upon a verified complaint, or upon affidavits if the complaint in the one case, or the affidavits in the other, show satisfactorily that sufficient grounds exist therefor. No preliminary injunction shall be granted without notice to the opposing party.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 527, subd. (a).)
The purpose of the preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo until a final determination of the merits of the action. (Casmalia Resources, Ltd. v. County of Santa Barbara (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 827, 832.) The burden is on the Plaintiff to show that it is entitled to the relief sought. (Id. at p. 838.)
A preliminary injunction requires “a complaint which states a sufficient cause of action for injunctive relief of the character embraced in the preliminary injunction.” (Handyspot Co. of Northern Cal. v. Buegeleisen (1954) 128 Cal.App.2d 191, 194.) A cause of action is based on the invasion of a primary right. (Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc. v. Lawyers’ Mut. Ins. Co. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 854, 860–861.)
The grant or denial of an injunction does not amount to an adjudication of the ultimate rights in a controversy, and merely determines that the Court, balancing the respective equities of the parties, concludes that, pending a trial on the merits, exercise of the right claimed by the Defendant should or should not be restrained. (Jamison v. Department of Transportation (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 356, 361.)
In deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction, a trial Court must evaluate two interrelated factors: (1) the likelihood that the Plaintiff will prevail on the merits at trial, and (2) the interim harm that the Plaintiff would be likely to sustain if the injunction were denied, as compared to the harm the Defendant would be likely to suffer if the preliminary injunction were issued. (Smith v. Adventist Health System/West (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 729,749.) The trial Court's determination must be guided by a mix of the potential-merit and interim-harm factors; the greater the Plaintiffs’ showing on one, the less that must be shown on the other to support an injunction. (Butt v. State of California (1992) 4 Cal.4th 668, 678.) However, a trial Court may not grant a preliminary injunction, regardless of the balance of interim harm, unless there is some possibility that the Plaintiff would ultimately prevail on the merits of the claim. (Ibid.)
“The likelihood of Plaintiffs’ ultimate success on the merits “ ‘does affect the showing necessary to a balancing-of-hardships analysis. That is, the more likely it is that Plaintiffs will ultimately prevail, the less severe must be the harm that they allege will occur if the injunction does not issue. This is especially true when the requested injunction maintains, rather than alters, the status quo. [Citation.] . . . [I]t is the mix of these factors that guides the trial Court in its exercise of discretion.’ ” [Citations.] The presence or absence of these interrelated factors “ ‘is usually a matter of degree, and if the party seeking the injunction can make a sufficiently strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits, the trial Court has discretion to issue the injunction notwithstanding that party's inability to show that the balance of harms tips in his favor. [Citation.]’ ” [Citation.]” (Right Site Coalition v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 336, 342.)
Plaintiffs have provided legal argument and evidence in support of their claims that Defendants engaged in self-help, forcible entry, trespass, and adverse possession. Defendants, on the other hand, argue that Plaintiffs are “unlikely to succeed on the merits.” (Opp., p. 13, ll. 8-13.)
The Court has reviewed all of the evidence submitted by the parties, as well as considered the legal arguments made by the parties. The Court finds that there is a strong likelihood that Plaintiffs will ultimately prevail on at least some of their causes of action.
Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs have not provided any evidence of imminent, irreparable harm. The Court disagrees. Photographs, survey maps, and plans have been submitted. The photographs show fairly extensive damage alleged to have been done to 922 Roble Lane by Defendants already. Defendants do not appear to dispute that they caused the removal of the wall and portions of the balcony. The plans appear to indicate that Defendants intend to make improvements to areas that were previously occupied by portions of 922 Roble Lane. If Defendants are not enjoined, and Plaintiffs ultimately prevail in the action, Plaintiffs will have been irreparably harmed by, among other things, being deprived of their use and enjoyment of the property, their personal property would potentially be destroyed or altered, and they would suffer continued trespass. Monetary, or other legal remedies are inadequate.
Plaintiffs argue “Defendants are obviously planning to construct [a] portion of their development on the land that was occupied by the improvements to the Plaintiffs’ residence they removed. That must be stopped to prevent the need for tearing down portions of Defendants’ new residence and restoring Plaintiffs’ residence.” (Ex Parte Application for TRO, p. 8, ll. 5-10.)
Finally, Defendants argue that because the fence has already been removed, there is no need for a preliminary injunction because the act has already taken place. (Opp., p. 11, l. 21.) This would imply that Defendants do not intend to do any more demolition, or construction, on the disputed portions of the property. If this is truly the case, Defendants should have absolutely no objection to a legal prohibition from doing so. Defendants are essentially conceding that they would suffer no harm if the preliminary injunction were issued.
The Court finds that the status quo should be maintained pending the final determination of this action or further order of the Court.
“On granting an injunction, the Court or judge must require an undertaking on the part of the applicant to the effect that the applicant will pay to the party enjoined any damages, not exceeding an amount to be specified, the party may sustain by reason of the injunction, if the Court finally decides that the applicant was not entitled to the injunction. Within five days after the service of the injunction, the person enjoined may object to the undertaking. If the Court determines that the applicant's undertaking is insufficient and a sufficient undertaking is not filed within the time required by statute, the order granting the injunction must be dissolved.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 529, subd. (a).)
“Notwithstanding rule 3.1312, whenever an application for a preliminary injunction is granted, a proposed order must be presented to the judge for signature, with an undertaking in the amount ordered, within one Court day after the granting of the application or within the time ordered. Unless otherwise ordered, any restraining order previously granted remains in effect during the time allowed for presentation for signature of the order of injunction and undertaking. If the proposed order and the undertaking required are not presented within the time allowed, the TRO may be vacated without notice. All bonds and undertakings must comply with rule 3.1130.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1150 (f).)
By way of their reply brief, Plaintiffs request that the bond be in the amount of $10,000.00. Defendants do not argue that it should be in a larger amount. As such, the undertaking will be in the amount of $10,000.00.
Plaintiffs will be given two Court days, or July 12, 2024, to file a proposed order and undertaking.
NOTICE: We may not have a court reporter for the trial of your case. We do have a court reporter for CMC and L&M Calendars. Check with the Court before you hire your own court reporter. If counsel wants to hire a court reporter, it will be your obligation to retain one for the trial. There can only be one official record of Court proceedings, and only a reporter appointed by the Court may report a Court proceeding. Only one reporter will be allowed to report a Court proceeding at any given time. If the parties cannot agree on a reporter, the Court will make the selection after you submit the name and address of the court reporter each counsel has engaged. Counsel will notify the Court 10 days in advance of the trial date if you are going to provide a court reporter. You may request that the electronic recording system that is already installed in the Courtroom be used. Information about that may be obtained from the Court’s website.
Ruling
KALE FREDHOLM, ET AL. VS R.E.C. DEVELOPMENT, INC.
Jul 10, 2024 |
22STCV09833
Case Number:
22STCV09833
Hearing Date:
July 10, 2024
Dept:
40
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 40
KALE FREDHOLM, an individual; MARIA FREDHOLM, individually and as Guardian Ad Litem for Minor PELESTENE FREDHOLM, an individual; ALICIA GILLILAND, individually and as Guardian Ad Litem for Minor RYAN NAEMARK, an individual; DANA GILLILAND, an individual; ANDREA CUTSHALL, individually and as Guardia Ad Litem for Minor MATTHEW ERICK CUTSHALL, an individual, and Minor JASON ALLEN CUTSHALL, an individual; ROSA MONTOYA, an individual; AMBER WASHINGTON, an individual; and ANGELA DADE, an individual,
Plaintiffs,
v.
R.E.C. DEVELOPMENT, INC., also known as Real Estate Connection; LAN, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive,
Defendants.
Case No.:
22STCV09833
Hearing Date:
07/10/24
Trial Date:
07/16/24
[TENTATIVE] RULING RE:
Petitioner Guardian Ad Litem Maria Fredholms Expedited Petition to Approve Compromise of Pending Action for Minor of Person with a Disability.
T
he named Plaintiffs bring this breach of habitability suit against their landlords or former landlordsDefendants R.E.C. Development, Inc. and LANbased on allegations that the Defendants rented to the Plaintiffs four different rental units with numerous alternate uninhabitable conditions and that the Defendants faileddespite numerous complaints by the Plaintiffsto remediate these conditions in the Plaintiffs respective rental units, all located at 22307 Kent Avenue, Torrance, CA 90505 (Subject Premises). These conditions include(d): cockroach and rodent infestations; lack of adequate control of infestations; resulting health problems to tenants; water leaks and intrusion; toxic mold causing mold spores to float in the air and be inhaled by plaintiffs; holes and cracks in the ceilings and/or interior walls; damaged and deteriorated carpeting/flooring; inoperable heating; lack of air conditioning; lack of sanitary plumbing; lack of fixtures in bathrooms; inoperable stoves or ovens; broken kitchen cabinets; an unsanitary and unsafe pool; and extensive trash strewn across the common areas.
On May 21, 2024, Guardian Ad Litem Maria Fredholm filed with the Court an unopposed Expedited Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person with a Disability (the Petition) in favor of Plaintiff Pelestene Fredholm. The Petition details a gross $50,000.00 Settlement between the Parties, with a distribution of gross distribution $45,100.00 to each Maria Fredholm and $4,900.00 for Pelestene Fredholm, and a final net settlement of $3,551.41 for Pelestene Fredholm.
Expedited Petition to Approve Compromise for Minor or Person with Disability: GRANTED
Legal Standard
: Under Code of Civil Procedure section 372, any settlement of a claim made by a minor or adult with a disability must be approved by the Court.
(See also Prob. Code § 3600, subd. (b) [a compromise or covenant for a disputed claim or damages, money, or other property of a minor or person who lacks legal capacity is valid only after it has been approved by the superior court].) ¿A petition for court approval of a compromise of a minor or disabled adults compromise or settlement of a pending action or proceeding to which this person is a party must be verified by the petitioner and must contain a full disclosure of all information that has any bearing upon the reasonableness of the compromise, covenant, settlement, or disposition.
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950; see also Cal. Rules of Court, rules 7.951-52.)
The petition is generally submitted on a completed
Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person with a Disability
(form MC-350).
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950.)
If the Court is satisfied that the settlement is in the best interest of the¿person, then the Court should approve the settlement.¿¿(See
Pearson v. Superior Ct.
¿(2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1338.)¿¿¿¿
Procedural Requirements
: A review of the instant Petition shows that it meets the requirements of California Rules of Court, rules 7.950 to 7.955.
The Petitions satisfy California Rules of Court, rule 7.950.
Petitioner Maria Fredholm submits a verified Civil Form MC-350EX seeking a settlement between R.E.C. Development, Inc. also known as Real Estate Connection (R.E.C., Development, Inc.) and Pelestene Fredholm. (See Petition, p. 7 [Petitioner verification].)
Further, the Petition contains a full disclosure of all information that has any bearing upon the reasonableness of the compromise, covenant, settlement, or disposition, in satisfaction of California Rules of Court, rule 7.950.
The Petition details $50,000.00 in gross settlement funds to be distributed to the Fredholm family.
(Petition, ¶ 3.)
Plaintiff Maria Fredholm is set to receive the gross settlement of $45,100.00.
(Petition, Attach. 12.)
Pelestene Fredholm is set to receive a gross settlement of $4,900.00 and net compromise of $3,551.41.
(Petition, ¶ 17(f), Attach. 12; Attach. 19(b)(4).)
Additionally, $1,225.00 of the Pelestene Fredholms net settlement will be used to pay attorneys fees.
(Petition, ¶ 17(c), 14(a).) Moreover, the remaining $123.59 will be used to pay the expenses which include mediation and filing fees. (Petition 17(e), see also Ohn Decl. ¶ 8 [limiting its cost reimbursement request as to the Minor Plaintiff in the amount of $123.59].)
The Petition satisfies California Rules of Court, rule 7.951.
This requirement provides that where a petitioner that has been represented or assisted by an attorney in preparing the petition to compromise the claim or in any other respect with regard to the claim, the petition must disclose specific information, which the Petition contains as follows:
(1) The name, state bar number, law firm, if any, and business address of the attorney. (Ohn Decl. p.1) [Gerald S. Ohn, SBN 217382, The Law
Offices of Gerald S. Ohn, APC, 800 South Figueroa Street, Suite 750 Los Angeles, CA 90017].)
(2) Whether the attorney has received any attorneys fees or other compensation for services provided in connection with the claim giving rise to the petition or with the preparation of the Petition, and, if so, the amounts and the identity of the person who paid the fees or other compensation.
(Petition, ¶ 18(b) [has not nor expects to receive]).
(3) Whether the attorney became involved with the Petition, directly or indirectly, at the instance of any party against whom the claim is asserted or of any partys insurance carrier.
(N/A).
(4) Whether the attorney represents or is employed by any other party or any insurance carrier involved in the matter.
(Petition ¶ 18(a), Attach. 18(a) [is representing another party, i.e., all of the plaintiffs in this action which is the subject of this Petition]).
(5) If the attorney has not received any attorneys fees or other compensation for services provided in connection with the claim giving rise to the petition or with the preparation of the Petition, whether the attorney expects to receive any fees or other compensation for these services, and, if so, the amounts and the identity of the person who is expected to pay the fees or other compensation.
(Petition, ¶ 17(d), Ohn Decl. ¶ 8) [is not being compensated by another party]).)
(6) The terms of any agreement between the petitioner and the attorney.
(Petition, Attach. 14(a) [Redacted Attorney-Client Retainer Agreement].)
The Guardian Ad Litem Petitioner and Plaintiff satisfy California Rules of Court, rule 7.952.
The Petition states that $3,551.41 be paid or delivered to a parent of the minor on the terms and under the conditions specified in Probate Code sections 3401-3402, without bond. The name of the parent is MARIA FREDHOLM and her current address is P.O. Box 1783 Lynwood, CA 90262. Thus, a separate check in the amount of $3,551.41 shall be issued to Petitioner and parent MARIA FREDHOLM. (Petition Attach. 19b(4).)
The Petition need not satisfy California Rules of Court, rule 7.954.
This rule provides the requirements for requesting the withdrawal of funds already deposited in favor of a minor or person with a disability pursuant to a prior compromise, which is not the case here.
(See Petition generally.)
The Petition satisfies California Rules of Court, rule 7.955.
This rule requires that the Court determine whether the attorneys fees charged of a minor or a person with a disability are reasonable.
Here, the Petition contains a Declaration from Gerald S. Ohn, Esq.the attorney who represents the Plaintiffsindicating that Pelestene Fredholm will be paying 25% of their $4,900.00 gross settlementi.e., $1,225.00toward Mr. Ohns legal services.
(Petition, Attach. 14(a).)
The Court finds that a 25% recovery for the type of action at bar is reasonable.
Substantive Requirements
: The Court finds that the settlement is in the best interests of Pelestene Fredholm.
(See
Pearson
,
supra
, 202 Cal.App.4th at p. 1338.)
Pelestene Fredholm will receive $4,900.00 of which $1,348.59 will be used for attorneys fees and costs. The remainding $3,551.41 will be paid or delivered to a parent of the minor on the terms and under the conditions specified in Probate Code sections 3401-3402, without bond. Thus, a separate check in the amount of $3,551.41 shall be issued to Petitioner and parent MARIA FREDHOLM. (Petition Attach. 19b(4).) The remaining $45,100.00 of the Settlement will be distributed to her parent, Maria Fredholm is in the best position to care for her children and can use the remaining proceeds of the Settlement to further the economic welfare and physical wellbeing of Pelestene Fredholm.
Conclusion
: Accordingly, the Expedited Petition for Approval of Compromise is GRANTED.
Conclusion
Guardian Ad Litem Maria Fredholms Petition for Approval of Compromise for Minor or Adult with Disability on behalf of Pelestene Fredholm is GRANTED because the Petition meets all requirements set forth in California Rules of Court rules 7.590 to 7.595 and the Court is satisfied that the Settlement is in the best interests of Plaintiff Pelestene Fredholm.
Ruling
William Shaw vs Ruth Shaw
Jul 11, 2024 |
23CV02548
23CV02548
SHAW v. SHAW
(UNOPPOSED) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO APPOINT PARTITION REFEREE
The unopposed motion is granted. Mr. Singer will be appointed as the partition referee.
Notice to prevailing parties: Local Rule 2.10.01 requires you to submit a proposed formal order
incorporating, verbatim, the language of any tentative ruling – or attaching and incorporating the
tentative by reference - or an order consistent with the announced ruling of the Court, in
accordance with California Rule of Court 3.1312. Such proposed order is required even if the
prevailing party submitted a proposed order prior to the hearing (unless the tentative is
simply to “grant”). Failure to comply with Local Rule 2.10.01 may result in the imposition of
sanctions following an order to show cause hearing, if a proposed order is not timely filed.
Case No. 19CV02702
RHOADS v. BECKLEY
APPLICATION FOR ORDER FOR SALE OF DWELLING/OSC FOR SALE OF
DWELLING
This application is continued as discussed below.
The original application, brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 704.740
through 704.850, was filed on January 26, 2023. For a variety of reasons, the application was
continued and not ruled upon. When the application was filed, Mr. Beckley was without counsel
and the court noted procedural as well as notice issues with the application, resulting in
continuances. Mr. Beckley then retained counsel, Thornton Davidson, on June 29, 2023.
Mr. Davidson sought to be relieved as counsel on May 8, 2024. The declaration in
support of Mr. Davidson’s motion to be relieved noted the next court date as June 11, 2024. The
court issued a tentative ruling the day before the June 11 hearing, tentatively granting the motion
to be relieved and specifically continuing the application for sale of dwelling to allow defendant
to either retain new counsel or participate in a pro per capacity. The parties were ordered to
appear. At the June 11 hearing, attended by Mr. Davidson and plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. Eschen,
Page 1 of 2
the court granted Mr. Davidson’s motion to be relieved and set July 11, 2024 as the next hearing
date. Mr. Beckley did not attend the June 11, 2024 hearing, nor is there evidence before the court
that he was notified of the July 11, 2024 date. The order prepared by Mr. Davidson after the
hearing and served on Mr. Beckley stated that the tentative ruling became the order of the court.
While the order attached the tentative ruling, there is no mention in either the order or the
tentative ruling of the July 11, 2024 hearing date for the application. The tentative ruling
specified that the application hearing would be set at the next court date.
The court will issue an order to show cause pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section
704.770, subdivision (a). “After the judgment creditor has filed an application for an order for
sale, the court sets a time and place for hearing and must order the judgment debtor to show
cause why an order for sale should not be made in accordance with the application. The hearing
must be set no later than 45 days after the application is filed, or such later time as the court
orders on a showing of good cause.” (2 MB Practice Guide: CA Debt Collection 17.36 (2024).)
After the OSC is set, Mr. Rhoads must serve on the judgment debtor, Mr. Beckley, a copy of the
OSC, a copy of the application, and a copy of the notice of hearing in the form required by the
Judicial Council. (See Code of Civ. Proc. § 704.770, subd. (b).)
Page 2 of 2
Ruling
GERSHMAN PROPERTIES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS CH GLENDORA, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
Jul 09, 2024 |
24PSCV00472
Case Number:
24PSCV00472
Hearing Date:
July 9, 2024
Dept:
G
Plaintiff Gershman Properties, LLCs Application for Default Judgment
Respondent: NO OPPOSITION
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff Gershman Properties, LLCs Application for Default Judgment is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $43,403.67.
BACKGROUND
This is an unlawful detainer action. In February 2023, Plaintiff Gershman Properties, LLC (Gershman) entered into a written lease agreement with Defendant CH Glendora, LLC (CH Glendora) in which Gershman agreed to lease commercial property in Glendora to CH Glendora. Subsequently, Gershman alleges CH Glendora breached the lease agreement by failing to pay rent. On January 24, 2024, Gershman served a three day notice to pay rent or quit on CH Glendora. CH Glendora subsequently failed to pay rent or vacate the Glendora property.
On February 7, 2024, Gershman filed a complaint against CH Glendora and Does 1-30, alleging a cause of action for unlawful detainer. On March 1, 2024, Gershmans process server served CH Glendora by posting notice at the Glendora property.
On March 19, 2024, the Court entered default against CH Glendora after CH Glendora failed to file a timely answer.
On March 25, 2024, the Court granted a default judgment for Gershman on the issue of possession only.
On May 17, 2024, Gershman submitted the present application for default judgment.
A case management conference is set for July 9, 2024.
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 585 permits entry of a default judgment after a party has filed to timely respond or appear. A party seeking judgment on the default by the court must file a Request for Court Judgment, and: (1) a brief summary of the case; (2) declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested; (3) interest computations as necessary; (4) a memorandum of costs and disbursements; (5) a proposed form of judgment; (6) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment under CCP § 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment; (7) exhibits as necessary; and (8) a request for attorneys fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties. (Cal. Rules of Court 3.1800.)
ANALYSIS
Gershman seeks default judgment against CH Glendora in the total amount of $43,403.68, including $40,476.72 in damages, $1,604.31 in attorney fees, and $1,322.65 in costs. Because the Court finds Gershman has submitted sufficient evidence, the Court
GRANTS
Gershmans application for default judgment with the following modification. While Gershman requests $1,604.31 in attorney fees, the correct calculation of attorney fees pursuant to Local Rule 3.214 is $1,604.30. Accordingly, the total requested damages will be reduced to $43,403.67.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Gershmans application for default judgment is
GRANTED
in the reduced amount of
$43,403.67.
Ruling
7561 MELROSE, LLC VS WESLEY SCOTT REARDAN, ET AL.
Jul 10, 2024 |
23STCV17398
Case Number:
23STCV17398
Hearing Date:
July 10, 2024
Dept:
58
Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki
Department 58
Hearing Date:
July 10, 2024
Case Name:
7561 Melrose, LLC v. Wesley Scott Reardan
,
et al
.
Case No.:
23STCV17398
Motion:
OSC re: Entry of Default Judgment
Moving Party:
Plaintiff 7561 Melrose, LLC
Responding Party:
Unopposed
Tentative Ruling:
Plaintiffs Default Judgment Application is denied without prejudice.
Background
This is an unlawful detainer action which arises from the alleged non-payment of rent. On July 24, 2023, Plaintiff 7561 Melrose, LLC (Plaintiff) filed a ComplaintUnlawful Detainer against Defendants Wesley Scott Reardan (Reardan), Tyler Steven Gonzalez (Gonzalez), and Does 1 to 10. According to the Complaint, Plaintiff is seeking forfeiture of the lease, reasonable attorneys fees, and damages at the rate of $666.66 per day from July 13, 2023. (UD-100 at pp. 3-4.)
On October 2, 2023, default was entered against Defendants Reardan and Gonzalez. (10/03/23 Minute Order.)
On October 30, 2023, judgment by default was entered against Defendants Reardan and Gonzalez for possession only. (10/30/23 Judgment.)
On May 20, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Request for Court Judgment form (CIV-100) seeking default judgment against Defendants Reardan and Gonzalez in the sum of $196,301.50. Also, on such date, Plaintiff filed a Proposed Judgment and Declaration of Parviz Sarshar (Sarshar) in Support of Default Judgment.
Legal Standard
California
Rules of Court
, Rule 3.1800 sets forth the requirements for default judgments. In pertinent part, the rule dictates that a party must use form CIV-100 and file the following documents with the clerk: (1) except in unlawful detainer cases, a brief summary of the case identifying the parties and the nature of plaintiff's claim; (2) declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested; (3)¿interest computations as necessary; (4) a memorandum of costs and disbursements; (5)¿a declaration of nonmilitary status for each defendant against whom judgment is sought; (6) a proposed form of judgment; (7) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment against specified parties under Code of Civil Procedure section 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment; (8)¿exhibits as necessary; and (9)¿a request for attorney fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1800(a)(1)-(9).)
Discussion
Plaintiff seeks default judgment against Defendants Reardan and Gonzalez.
The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to meet the requirements of California
Rules of Court
, Rule 3.1800 in order to obtain entry of default judgment against Defendants Reardan and Gonzalez. Plaintiff has failed to: (1) provide interest computations as necessary; and (2) dismiss parties against whom judgment is not sought as the Doe defendants have not been dismissed. Plaintiffs have also failed to substantiate the requested damages as no ledger or documentation is attached to the declaration of Ms. Sarshar showing the amount of past due rent, late fees, or holdover damages. Additionally, although requesting attorneys fees, Plaintiff has not indicated whether the requested attorneys fees are allowed by statute or agreement of the parties. The declaration of Ms. Sarshar fails to set forth the basis for the requested attorneys fees.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs default judgment application is denied without prejudice.
Document
Wilmington Savings Fund Society, Fsb, Not In Its Individual Capacity But Solely As Owner Trustee Of Csmc 2021-Rpl2 Trust v. Marco Oliveira AKA MARCO OLIVERIA, New York State Department Of Taxation And Finance, Workers Compensation Board Of The State Of New York, United States Of America On Behalf Of The Irs, Capital One Bank Usa, Na, Bank Of America, N.A., John Doe
Jul 10, 2024 |
Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |
Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |
616593/2024
Document
U.S. Bank National Association, As Trustee For Terwin Mortgage Trust 2004-18sl, Asset Backed Certificates, Series Tmts 2004-18sl v. Jenny E. Johnson, Robert Kay, John Doe, Said Name Being Fictitious, It Being The Intention Of Plaintiff To Designate Any And All Occupants Of Premises Being Foreclosed Herein, and any parties, corporations or entities, if any, having or claiming an interest or lien upon the mortgaged premises
Jul 08, 2024 |
Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |
Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |
616266/2024
Document
Newrez Llc D/B/A Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing v. Luis Alonso Zelaya Rodriguez AS HEIR OF THE ESTATE OF DANIEL ZELAYA, Francisco O. Zelaya Rodriguez AS HEIR OF THE ESTATE OF DANIEL ZELAYA, Lorenzo A. Zelaya Herrera AS HEIR OF THE ESTATE OF DANIEL ZELAYA, United States Of America Internal Revenue Service, New York State Department Of Taxation And Finance, People Of The State Of New York, Clerk Of The Suffolk County Traffic And Parking Violations Agency, Lvnv Funding, Llc, Capital One Bank Usa, N.A., Tesla, Inc., Vivint Solar Developer, Llc, John Doe And Jane Doe #1 Through #7, The Last Seven (7) Names Being Fictitious And Unknown To The Plaintiff, The Persons Or Parties Intended Being The Tenants, Occupants, Persons Or Parties, If Any, having or claiming an interest in or lien upon the mortgaged premises described in the complaint
Jul 10, 2024 |
Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |
Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |
616594/2024
Preview
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2020 01:39 PM INDEX NO. 611202/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2020 "V" EXHIBIT FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2020 01:39 PM INDEX NO. 611202/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 27 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/24/201 Document drafted by and 'RECORDING REQUESTED BY: Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC 1600 South Douglass Road, Suite 200-A Anaheim, California 92806 LIMITED POWER OF ATTORNEY Stanwich Mortgage Loan Trust A (the "Trust"), by and through Wilmiagian Savings Fund Society, FSB d/b/a Christiana Trust, and having an office at 500 Delaware Avenue 11th Floor, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, Attention: Corporate Trust- Stanwich Mortgage Loan Trust A, not in its individual capacity but solely as UTI Trustee ("UTI Tmstee"), hereby constitutes and appoints Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC, ("Servicer"), and in its name, aforesaid Attorney- In-Fact, by and through any officer appointed by the Board of Directors of Servicer, to execute and acknowledge in writing or by facsimile stamp all documents customarily and reasonably necessary and appropriate for the tasks described in the items (1) through (5) below; provided however, that the documents described below may only be executed and delivered by such Attorneys-In-·Fact if such documents are required or permined under the terms of the Servicing and Custodial Agreement, dated as of August II, 2015 (the "Servicing and Custodial Agreement") for the respective Trust listed on the attached §steduk A. among Stanwich Mortgage Acquisition Company IV, LLC, as initial beneficiary (the "Initial Beneficiary"), Carrington Capital Management L.L.C. as mortgage eimi e+cr (the "Mortgage Administrator"), Servicer, as servicer, Stanwich Mortgage Loan Trust A, as owner (the "Owner"), UTI Trustee, and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as custodian and paying .agent (the "Costodlan") as supplemented on or more SUBI Supplements (as defined in the Servicing and Custodial Agreement) and no power is granted hereunder to take any action that would be adverse to the interests of Winnington Savings Fund Society, FSB d/b/a Christiana Trust. This Limited Power of Attomey is being issued in connection with Servicer's responsibilities to service certain mortgage loans (the "Loans") and related Properties (as defined below) held by Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB d/b/a Christiana Trust, as UTI Trustee. These Loans are secured by collateral comprised of Mortgages, Deeds of Trust, Deeds to Secure Debt and other fonns of security instromcats (collecdvely the "Security Instruments") encumbering any and all real and personal property delineated therein (the "Property") and the Notes secured thereby. 1. Domand, sue for, recover, collect and receive each and every sum of money, debt, account and interest (which now is, or hereafter shall become due and payable) belonging to or claimed by Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB d/b/a Christiana Tmut, as UTI Trustee, and to use or take any lawfW means for recovery by legal process or otherwise, including but not limited to th. substitution of trustee serving under a Dced of Trust, the preparation and issuance of statements of breach, notices of default. and/or notices of sale, taking deeds in licu of foreclosure, evicting (to the extem allowed by federal, state or local laws) and foreclosing on the properties under the Security instmments. Document Nun foer: 2016000027910 Page: 2 of 6 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2020 01:39 PM INDEX NO. 611202/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 27 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/24/201! 2. Execute and/or file such doct-ms and talm such other action as is proper and necessary to defend Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB d/b/a Christiana Trust, as UTI Trustee in litigation and resolve any litigation where the Servicer has an obligation to defend Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB d/b/a Christiana Trust, as UTI Trustee. 3. Transact businessof any kind regarding the Loans and the Properties, as Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB d/b/a Christisñâ Trust, as UTI Trustee's act and deed, to contract for, purchase, lease, receive and take possession and evidence of title in and to the Property and/or to secure payment of a promissory note or performance of any obligation or agreement relating thereto. 4. Execute bonds, notes, mortgages, deeds of trust and other contracts, agreemems and instruments mgarding the borrowers and/or the Property, including but not limited to the execution of releases, sa'ishdens, assignments, loan modification agreements, loan assumption agreements, subordination agiccmcats, propetty adjustment agreements, and other instruments pertainirtg to mortgages or deeds of trust, bills of sale and execution of deeds and associated and related instrurnents and documents necessary, if any, conveying or encumbering the Property or to effect the conveyance or release of an encumbrance on the Property, in the interest of Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB d/b/a Christiana Trust, as UTI Trustee. 5, Endorse on behalf of the undersigned all checks, drafts and/or other negotiable instruments made payable to the undersigned. Icothing contained herein shall (i) limit in any manner any indemnification provided be the Scrucer to the UTI Tnr:tee under the Servicing and Costodla! Agreement, any applit.+le M'BI 4uprtements or the Tit)!ng Trust Agreement (as defmed in the Servicing and •. ustadial .greemem), er rit, be construed to grant the Servicer the power to initiate or defend any suit, lidgation i r pmceeding in the name of Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB d,b/a ans*íana Trtist in its individual capacity. if the Servicer receives any notice of suit, litigatio cr proceeding in the none of Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB d‰ Chrisdana irust in i•s indh idual capacity. then the Servicer shall promptly forward a copy of same to 0lmington savings Fund Society, FSB d/b/a Christiana T rust, in accordance with the notice pre nlons of the Servicing and Custodial Agreement or the Supplements. This Limited Power of Attorney is not intended to extend the powers granted to the Servicer under the Servicing and Agreement or the Supplements or to allow the Servicer to take .n: acti-m with resp- a to Security Instruments or promissory notes (or other evidence of indJtedness) not cuthorized by the Servicing and Custodlal Agreement or the Supplements. Servicer hereby agrees to indemnify and hold Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB d/b/o Christiana Trust, as UTITrustee, and its directors, officers, employees and agents bannless from and against any and all liabilities, obligations, losses, damages, penalties, actions, judgments, suits, costs, expenses or disbursements of any kind or nature wharsoever incurred by reason or result of the exercise by the Servicer of the powers specifically granted to it under the wrvicmg and Custodial Agreement or the Supplements. The foregoing indemmty shall survive the Document Number: 2016000027910 Page 3 of 6 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2020 01:39 PM INDEX NO. 611202/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 27 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/24/201 ter=!cation of this Limited Power of Attomey and the Servicing and Custodial Agreement or the Supplements or the earlier resignation or removal of Wilmiñgics Savings Fund Society, FSB d/b/a Christiana Trust, as UTT Trustee under the Servicing and Custodial Agreement or the Supplements. Qf- Witness my hand and seal this c2 day of brt , 2015. NO CORPORATE SEAL On Behalf of the Trust, by Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB d/b/a Christiana Trust, not in its individual capacity, but solely as Trustee Witne : Jason B. Hill Name: Michael G. fler Wimeas: Donna Lockerman Attest: Cedric L. Strother , Trust Officer CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of Delaware County of New Castle On this 23 day of _Sgpterakgr , 201S. betbre me, the under p:d, a Notary Public in and ror said County and State, personally appeared fivinel u OJJsdr._, and Cedric L. Spothen. personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the persons who executed the within instrument as Vice President and Trust Onicer of Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB d/b/a Christiana Trust, and ackr.ow:cdged to me that such national banking association executed the within instnunent pursuant to its by4aws or a resolution of its Board of Directors. WIINESS my hand and official sea Signature: Vy c mmission expires NOTARYPUBUC.STATEOF DELAWARE MY COMMtSSIONEXP1RES AUGUSTW 318 20183000: Paqe- 4 of 6 Document Number: . 910 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2020 01:39 PM INDEX NO. 611202/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2020 NYSCEF DOC . NO . 27 RECEIVED NYS CEF: 10 / 2 4 / 2 01 KtiEDULE A 5tanwich Mortgage Loan Trust A Docurnent Nurnber: 201600CJ27910 Page: 5 of 6 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2020 01:39 PM INDEX NO. 611202/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2020 NYSCEF DOC. No. 27 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/24/20 THISIS A CERTIFIEDCOPYOFTHE COUNTYCLERMaECOROEM RECORDIFIT BEARSTHE SEAL,AND SIGNATUREOFTHEORANGE COUNWCt.ERK-RECORDER. . 6/6/2016 n CERTlRCATIONFEE _6.00 - g , ORANGECOUNTY STATEOFCALIFORNIA Document Number: 2016000027910 Page: 6 of 6 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2020 01:39 PM INDEX NO. 611202/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2020 "W" EXHIBIT FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2020 01:39 PM INDEX NO. 611202/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/24/202 PrenarettSve CatherineGdffith lianison,Mclaughlin & Assoalates,PLLC 70f lfighlanderBlvdo Suite.270 Arilngton,Texas76015 Reypt,, ,, , , Roach and Un, P.C. 6901 Jericho Tpke, Suite 240 Syosset, NY 11791 SpeeA6oveThis Ilae lbrRecordcr'sUse ASSIGNMENT OF MORTGAGE FOR VALUE RECBIVED, the undersigned holder of a Mortgage, CAPITAL ONE. N.A., AS SUCC ESSOR By Merger To ING Bank, FSB, whose address is 1680 Capital One Drive, Melean, VA 22102 (hereinafter, "Assignor"), does hereby grant, sell, assign, transfer and convey unto Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, As Trustee Of Stanwich Mortgage Loan Trust A, whose address is 1600 South Douglass Road, Sutte 200-A, Anaheim, CA 92806 (hereinafter, "Assignee"), all beñcficial interest under that certain Mortgage described below, together with the note(s) and obligations therein described and the rnoney due and to become due thereon with interest and all rights accrued or to accrueunder said Mortgage. Original Leader: ING BANK, FSB Borrower(s): Lisa Mohrman Date of Deed of Mortgage: 6/12/2006 Original Loan Amount: $300,000.00 Property Address: 20 Martin Rd East Quogne, NY 11942 A" Legal Description: See attached "Exhibit Recorded in Suffolk County New York on 7/6/2006, at'fb¤M!‡339; Page 608 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2020 01:39 PM INDEX NO. 611202/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2020 NYSCEF DOC. No. 30 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/24/201 IN V/ITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be exwuisd as a sealed instrument by its proper officer. Executed on: E 2 6 28 Capital One. N.A., As Successor By Merger Te Ing Bank, Feb By: Carrington Mortgage as Attorney-in-Fact for Assignor By: Prit ed Name: habeth A.0demann Its: vicePastiten4Carringtonsettgagesenlagilc SECTION 275: This assignment is not subject to the requirements of Section 275 of the Real Property Law because it is an assignment within the sec^ndary mortgage market. Section: 384.00 Block: 02.00 Lot: 030.000 ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF_ . _ _ _ ___ } } as COUNTY OF ... - } On.. __ _ _ _ __.... befo v me _ __. a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally scared ---.- -who proved to me on the basis of setL setmy evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument an acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), at that by his/her/their signature(s) on theiratmment the or the entity upon behalf of whi • the person(s), person(s) acted, executed thei::s‡mment. SEE a ½CHED WTTNESS my hand and official seal. (SEAL) -- NOTARY SIGNATURE Printed Name: My Commission Expires: _. FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2020 01:39 PM INDEX NO. 611202/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2020 NYSCE F DOC. NO. 30 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/24/20: EXHIB1T A APN: 0900-384.000-0002-030.000 Loan Number: ALL that certain plot, piece or percel of land, with the bullidings and improvements thereon erected, situate, lying and being near East Q uogue (unincorporated area), Town of Southampton, County of Suffolk and State of New York, known and designated as Lot Number 195 upon a certain map entitled "Subdivision Map,Section 1, Shinnecook Shores, situate at Pine Neck Near East Quague Town of Southampton, Suffolk County, N.Y., surveyed by N.Y." Theodored F. Squires, Ucsr,5sd Land Surveyors, Southampton, and filed In the Office of the Clerk of Suffolk County on March 19, 1953 under the filed map number 2040 and being more fully bounded and desc#ed acccitiiñg to said map as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the westerly side of Marlin Road distant 652.50 feet southerly from the northerly end of a curve connecting the said westerly sfde of Marlin Road with the southerly side of Shinnecook Road as measured along the said westerly side of Marlin Road as shown upon the foresaid map; RUNNING THENCE south 12 degrees 57 minutes 50 s=cer-ds west along the westerly side of Marlin Road, 75 feet; THENCE north 77 degrees D2 minutes 10 ascords west, 150 feet THENCE north 12 degrees 57 minutes 60 seconds east 75 feet THENCE south 77 degrees D2 minutes 10 seconds east 150 feet to the westerly side of Mariln Road, the point or place of BEGINNING. FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2020 01:39 PM INDEX NO. 611202/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/2 4 /. A nqtatypublic or other omcer compledng Îhis certificate vermes only the identity of die indlyldual who signed the document. to which this certificate is ".inds"t/‡J"""""""" - CALIFORNIA ALL - PURPOSE J CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of Orange On DFP. n pnts before me, Judit Sauoedo, Notary Public, personally appeared, Elizabeth A. Ostermann, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are-subscribed to the within instrument and s'mandged to me that he/she/éey execu*~f the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/eelr signaturc(s) on the instrumentthe person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I cettify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the f:sgohs paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS a in d and official seal, Juorrsauceco NotaryPutr<~Cattonsta .....-- OrangeCounty Comestiniott 27185156 Signature .. . - . (Seal) Mar2/.202) MyCottunJmgires ADDITIONAL OPTIONAL INFORMATION IXVIRW. TIONS I OR COMPLE11% •His FOR.Nf DESCRTPTIONOF THE ATTACMED DOCL%fENT •. r. :. ^* · ·•-i . •- . * • -• ; It fu • • f *•'7t'AsiWst\n t F ..,,r *,.• i.·•m•nethe.. ..nedev.. .* * .'.• a.g..•r Mr •:es ,•.se. ,* t t |HidL 1 • WI. 13t1011He88beUteN%|w JimL, s31f't.grf ghtdW5ithe.a 1 O(r spe- .S.©tignlag _ DNunldill D•d ... * 933)per , elly spranviller..r amnat.istpt..6 i s a Itt.•. e.!ggue.o . no..t-a..,as,. s,n,..i w dw,w,am .- wom. .w, w c,,cmawim annst ahisbedeSame dase t4.eacitriochdymesd toc -ang4eted t -tddit. sisal'ons.anent • 1henolan'publnirantgaintr tusvt ing4un* M it .,, r*n oilrmhaser her t astllil5Y.5'm r by2t •'·ttP itl ·enUSf3l" ·•*'A habI • Ltst)5d.vt.s'; + .nu * seteof docunne: oracatu ' prapeG , , r i o inw - , 14138 P241stW A)*ACITY CE.ALht O BY TF. ICiSER le, te a w >. ost-i he. •ect. n Pu,ir o st I she c, st indh'icittal (#*) me.stio m h. t mscuest.at--fd. onwer ut - C ConmrareOmeer • T3* * 6 • 4 m v a * · aN b v alt4id· ' W r: I e'aedde fu , e.a a n ..t env .4 - ! --sit .st. , u...I3uss yr .ct1sea h .aw 4,,n *• ®- • t'ter a' • .r*I loitmiedgos..' fonti . .., , * t !- * - , *, . ' · .e PattitartQ 31, e . t Alewint.es- si(,ceed g ,, ,.., AUCI)WIT-111-Fite( + Ad 4tearla.urantiatient st ri. regiised6istcondaincipto en.o+isu, TnlWesHhl adamele,lyeeuru notmetavdorainclied 19nAmilemend dnunwal Ollidt - + h.cas.·t c - rt,atstatuehfJ.hn tra tr • ber L .rt I da - -- -- + : do v Ne g·. ,,,ned(n thebgoceNne i ...stedstp.m a a cot.wars*oG a-' isticise (EO f.PC¼termrv) et is 'sc.src