Preview
Utrecht & Lenvin, LLP
ELECTRONICALLY
FILED
PAUL F. UTRECHT (SBN 118658) puerto Gourt of California,
ELIZABETH L. HURWITZ (SBN 278846) 07/28/2017
RAYMOND M. YETKA (SBN 286829) Clerk of the Court
UTRECHT & LENVIN, LLP BY:BOWMAN LIU
109 Stevenson Street, 5" Floor Deputy Clerk
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 357-0600
Fax: (415) 354-3485
Attorneys for Petitioners PRIYA SANGER.
And MICHAEL SANGER
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO -- UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
PRIYA SANGER, MICHAEL Case No.: CPF-12-511985
SANGER,
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER FOR
Petitioners,
SALE OF DWELLING
vs.
Date: August 4, 2017
LEAH AHN, Time: 9:30 a.m.
Dept.: 302
Respondent.
Pursuant to Evidence Code §$§ 452 and 453, Petitioners/Judgment Creditors Priya Sanger
and Michael Sanger request that the Court take judicial notice of the following court records.
1. Declaration of Elizabeth L. Hurwitz in Opposition to Respondent’s Motion
Objecting to Miscalculations in Memorandum of Costs After Judgment, filed in this action May
26, 2017, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A.
2. Docket report in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of
California, Jn Re: Leah Aln, Case No. 14-30874 (the “Ahn Bankruptcy”), a copy of which is
attached as Exhibit B.
3. Final Decree, filed January 13,2014 in the Ahn Bankruptcy, a copy of which is
attached as Exhibit C,
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SALE OF DWELLINGUtrecht & Lenvin, LLP
in Francisco, CA 94105
109 Stevenson Street, 5" Floor
4, Order Denying Motion for Contempt of Discharge Injunction, filed November 17,
2017 in the Ahn Bankruptcy a copy of which is attached as Exhibit D.
5. ‘Transcript of proceedings on November 17, 2016 hearing in the Aha Bankruptcy
on Debtor’s Motion for Order of Civil Contempt, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit E.
6. Petition for Review to the Supreme Court of California, filed by Leah Ahn,
Supreme Court Case No $236458, regarding Sanger v Ahn, First Appeliate District, Division One
Case No. A14571 (the “Fee Appeal”), a copy of which is attached as Exhibit F,
7. Motion to Recall the Remittitur & Motion to Dismiss the Appeal, filed December
29, 2016, by Leah Ahn, in the Fee Appeal, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit G,
8. Order Denying Petition For Review By the Supreme Court of California, in the Fee
Appeal, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit H.
9. Order Denying Motion to Recall the Remittitur and to Dismiss the Appeal, filed
January 19, 2017 in the Fee Appeal, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit I.
10. Order Granting Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs, filed in this action on January
13, 2017, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit J.
It. Order Confirming that The Automatic Stay Has Been Terminated, filed June 5,
2015 in the Ahn Bankruptcy, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit K.
12. Notice of Termination or Modification of Stay, filed by Leah Ahn on June 1, 2015
in this action, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit L.
13. Notice of Termination or Modification of Stay, filed on behalf of Petitioners on
November 21, 2016 in this action, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit M.
14. Order Denying Leah Ahn’s Motion to Recall and Quash Order for Sale of
Dwelling, filed March 14, 2014 in this action, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit N.
15. Notice of Appeal filed by Leah Ahn in this action on March 18, 2014, a copy of
which is attached as Exhibit O.
16. Notice of Dismissal of Appeal and Issuance of Remittitur, filed on August 26, 2015
in the Fee Appeal, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit P.
2.
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SALE OF DWELLING5" Floor
. CA 9405
109 St
Utrecht & Lenvin, LLP
17. The Final Award of the Honorable David A. Garcia (Ret.), dated December 21,
2011 a copy of which is attached as Exhibit Q
18. The Order of this Court granting the Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award, filed
March 12, 2012, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit R,
19. The Judgment of this Court granting the Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award,
filed March 12, 2012, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit S.
Dated: July 27, 2017
UTRECHT & LENVIN, LLP _
ne? :
Raymond M. Yetka
Attorneys for Petitioners
Priya Sanger and Michael Sanger
3.
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SALE OF DWELLINGEXHIBIT APAUL F. UTRECHT (SBN 1 18658}
ELIZABETH 1. HURWITZ (SBN 278846)
UTRECHT & LENVIN, LLP ELECTRONICALLY
109 Stevenson Street, 5" Floor FELED
San Francisco, CA 94105 Superior Court of Catfornia,
‘Telephone: (4) $) 337-0600 eee ere ieaee
05/26/2017
oe Clerk of the Court
Atiorneys for Petitioners BY.DAVED YUEN
Priya Sanger and Michact Sanger eee Ser
SUPERTOR COURT — STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY - UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION
PRIYA SANGER, MICHAEL SANGER. | Case No, CPT-12-51 1985
DECLARATION OF ELIZABETH L.
HURWITZ IN OPPOSITION TO
RESPONDENT'S MOTION
OBJECTING TO MISCALCULATIONS
IN MEMORANDUM OF COSTS AFTER
JUDGMENT
Petitioners,
vs.
LEAH AHN,
Respondent.
Date: June 9, 2017
Time: 1:30 pam.
Dept: 366
{, Elizabeth L. Hurwitz, declare as follows:
1. Lam attomey licensed to practice before all courts in the State of California, | am one of
the attorneys representing Petitioners Priya Sanger and Michael Sanger (the “Sangers”) in this
action.
2. I make this declaration in opposition to Respondents’ Motion Objecting te Miscalcutation
in memorandum of Costs (“Motion”). I make this declaration based on personal knowledge and if
called as a witness | could and would testify as follows:
3. I committed a scrivener’s error when drafting the original Declaration of Accrued interest,
filed on April 27, 2017. On September 9, 2015, Respondent made a payment in the amount of
$3,551.19. L mistakenly wrote that amount as $3,331.19 in the original Declaration of Accrued
ele
DECLARATION OF ELIZABETH L, HURWITZ IN OPPOSITION TO RESPON!
MISCALCULATIONS iN MEMORANDUM OF COSTS AFT!
T'S MOTION OMECTING TO
SUDGMENTUTRECHT & LENVIN, LLP
109 Stevenson Street, 5* Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Interest, Memorandum of Costs and Writ of Execution. This led to an incorrect calculation of the
amounts owed. The Amended Declaration of Accrued Interest, Amended Memorandum of Costs
and Amended Writ of Execution have been redrafted to show the correct amount of Respondent's
payment and the interest amounts aflected by that payment and were filed on May 34, 2017. Truc
and correct copies of the amended documents are attached as Exhibit A.
4. The arbitrator's Corrected Final Award required Respondent to repay $6,460.24 she had
wrongfully withdrawn from the tenants in common operating account, A true and correct copy of
the Corrected Final Award is attached as Exhibit B, Pp. 1415-17, Respondent was ardered to
“perform all the acts required by the Corrected Final Award” by the judgment of this Court,
entered on March 12, 2012. A true and correct copy of this judgment is atiached as Exhibit C. This
includes repayment of the $6,460.24. Respondent never paid this amount and it was included in
the calculation of the judgment to ensure all outstanding amounts owed by Respondent were
listed.
5. ‘The judgment was amended in March 2014, and July 2015, to add mortgage payments that
Respondent bad [ailed to pay (even though she had been ordered to do so by the arbitrator and this
Court). Respondent's failure to pay her share of the mortgage payments required the Sangers to
make those payments for her to prevent the entire building from being foreclosed by the lender.
The jndgment was only amended in this ane respect, to add the additional money owed by
Respondent to the Sangers.
§. Oa Jannacy 13, 2017, this Court granted the Sangers’ motion for attomeys’ fees and issued
an order requiring Respondent to pay the Sangers $130,514 in attorneys’ fees. (Order, attached as
Exhibit C to Declaration of Leah Abn, p. 2}
7. The Sangers concurrently filed two cost memos with their motion for attorneys’ fees. One
cost memo claiming $3,034.50 for costs owed to the Sangers following their successful appeal in
this case, and one cost memo claiming $1,575.20 for costs incurred in the trial court. True and
correct copics of these two cost memos are attached as Exhibit D. Respondent's objection to these
DECLARATION OF RLIZABETH L, HURWITZ IN OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT'S MOTION OBJECTING IO
MISCALCULATIONS IN MEMORANDUM OF COSTS AFTER JUDGMENT.UTRECHT & LENVIN, LLP
108 Stevenson
memos was found to be “belated and meritless” by fudge Utmer (Order, attached as Exhibit
€ to Declaration of Leah Ahn). The amounts of the two costs memos were added to attorneys’ fees
awarded by this Court for a total amount af $135.1 * fees and costs,
8. The total amount currently owed to the Sangers by Respondent is calculated as follows:
$135,123.76, plus the remai
ng outstanding judgment amount of $5,226.41, plus the accrued
interest amount of $4,662.48, brings the total ameunt to $145,612.59 as of April 26, 2017.
Additional interest has accrued since this dete.
I declare under penalty;
perjury under the laws of the State of California thet the
foregoiny is true and voreeet and that this declaration was executed on May 26, 2017, at Sun
Francisco, CA,
“2
DECLARATION OF ELIZABETH L. N OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT'S MOTION OBJECTING TO
MISCALCULATIONS IN MEMORANDUM OF COSTS AFTER JUDGMENTExhibit A| attonwey ou tani rannscur ATIGRUEY fine, Size Surcaseer season
Meo
“FOR couRT ise om
Pant F. Utrecht (SBN | 18658): Elizabeth L. Hurwite (SBN 278846}
HJtrecht & Leavin, LLP
109 Stevenson Street, Sth Floor
Saa Franciseo, CA 94105
Tecernoue ss (413) 357-0600 Fan,
Ey Fon ison Poritioners Priva Squeer 4 Michzel Sanoer 4
uate or couerSant Francisco Superior Court i
srmeei aporess-400 McAllister Street
saquec aouness 400 McAllister Street
nv anna cooe:San Francisca, CA 94102
..__ Bravctirmne Unlimited Civil furisdiction- Civic Center Branch 7
PLAINTIFF: Priya Sanger and Michael Sanger
OEFENDANT: Leah Ahn
L Naerclae, o
{ MEMORANDUM OF COSTS AFTER JUDGMENT, ACKNOWLEDGMENT eae rearet 7 7
L _OF CREDIT, AND DECLARATION OF ACCRUED INTEREST. CRE~12-311985
ain the following costs after judgment incurred within tha fost two years findicalo if there
ate multiple toms in any category: 7 ‘Dates incurred Areuat
a_| Preparing ang issuing abstract of judgment Ss
'b [Recording and indexing absteact of judgment is ~~
& [Filing nolice of judgment lien an personal propady iS
& issuing wil of axecstian, to extent nol salished by Code Gi Plow 8805 abo | is
(specify county
© [Levying officers fees, to extant not Setisfied by Code Civ Proa. § 685.080 er wage] i$
garishment
1 Approved fee on application for ender for appearance of judlgmen Gabler, or siher
Spproved costs uncer Cede Civ. Proc. § 706.110 at seq,
Altorney tees. if allowed by Code Giv. Prec., § 6B:
other: {Statute authouzing cos)
Total of clsimed costs ior current memorandum of casts (add lems a-hy
2. All previously allowed posijudgment costs eee See ete
. Total of al pastiudgment costs (add tenes T and)... a :
Acknowledgment of Credit. | acknowledge tolal credit to date (including returns on levy process and dicect payments) inthe
amountof 13 134,649.24
} Declaration of Accrued Interest, Inierest an the judgment accruing al the lega! rate from the dato of enty on balances due aor
Partial satisfactions and ather credits in the amount of: [¥ 33.356.9G
6 famine [} judgment creditor [ J agent for the judgment creditor (21 attorney tor the judgment creator,
Uhave knowledge of the facts conceming the casts ctalmed above. To the bast of my knowledge and belie, the costs claimed are
correct, reasonable, and necessary, and have not been satisfied,
Aw
»
| declare under penaity of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregai
Date: May 24.2017
Elizabeth L. Hurwitz b
biel Toran [s 135,123.76
ho
TYP OR Re ae C “7 Sprint oe eeyinap
NOTICE TO THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR
if this memorandum of costs is filed at the same time as an application for a wait of,
$100 in aggregate and net already aliowed by the court, may ba included in
meniocandum may be dlsatowed by the court upon a motion 10 tax filed by t
included in the wat of execution. {Code Civ. Proc., § 686,070{e).) A motion to lax costs claimed in this memorandum must Le fled
within 10 days atter service of the memorandum. {Coda Civ, Proc., § 685,070(c).}
7 (Proot of secvice on reverse)
“DealtsmiciGaaes, MEMORANDUM OF COSTS AFTER JUDGMENT, ACKNOWLEDGMENT aie Ce aes
aeCore ghey feneay ny OF CREDIT, AND DECLARATION OF ACCRUED INTEREST PediMC-012
MShoataite: ‘Gabe we
| Ma Sanger, et.al. vy, Leah Abn CPP-1251 1985
PROOF OF SERVICE
Mait [“"} Personal Service
1. At ibe time of service t wes at feast 18 years of ag@ and not 2 party to this tegal action.
2. My residence of business address is (specify):
Uuecht & Lenvin, LLP,
109 Stevenson Street, 5th Floor San Franciseo, CA 94105
at
5. {mailed or personally delivered 2 copy of the Memorandum of Cosis After dusigniont, Ackaowledigmont af Credit, and Declaration of
Accrued Interest ag follows {complete either a orb):
(7) tai. iam a resident of o employed in the caunly where the mailing occurred,
(1) Fenclosed a capy in an envelope AND
{2} [77] deposited the seated envelope wilh the Uniled States Postal Service vith the postage fully prepaid,
ib} Placed the: exvelope for collection and mating on the date and at the plsce shown in lene below lotlowing
bur ordinary busiess practices. ! am readily familiar with this business's practice for collecting an processing
cotrespondence fer muiting. On the seme day thal corespondence is. Placed for cnliection and mailing, it is
Gepesiled in the ordinery course of business with the United States Postal Service in » genio envelope with
postage fully prapaid,
(2) The envelope was addressed and mailed as follows:
{a} Name of parson served: Leah Alin
{b] Address on envelope: 851 Lombard Street San Prancisee, CA 94133
{c} Date of matting: May 24, 2017
(0) Place of mailing (city and state:
San Francisco, CA
&. [“~"] Personal delivery. | personally detivered 2 copy as follows:
(1) Name of persen served:
(2) Address where delivered:
(3) Date delivered:
(4) Time delivered:
' dectare under penalty of perjury under the faws of the State of Californie that the foregoing igtive and court,
vt oe
Gee
#
Date: May 24, 2017
-
Michelle Chan Le
UO" irom paints 0 (SReRiaTURE or bocca
MOBI Prev Jsewory ¢. 20ni] MEMORANDUM OF COSTS AFTER JUDGMENT, ACKNOWLEDGMENT rage wo
OF CREDIT, AND DECLARATION OF ACCRUED INTERESTSan Francisco,
UTRECHT & LENVIN, LLP
109 Stevenson Stree
PAUL F, UTRECHT (SBN t 18658)
ELIZABETH L. HURWITZ (SBN 278846)
UTRECHT & LENVIN, LLP
109 Stevenson Stree: F
San Francisco. CA 9:
Telephone: (413) 357-0606
Auttomeys for Petitioners Priya Sanger and Michael Sanger
SUPERIOR COURT - STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SAN PRANCISCO COUNTY - UNLIMITED CIV, JURISDICTION
PRIYA SANGER, MICHAEL SANGER Case No, CPF-12-31 1985
'
Petitioners, i AMENDED DECLARATION OF
{ ACCRUED INTEREST
vs. Z
|
LEAH AHN, {
Respondent,
Interest on the judgment accruing at the legal rate from the date of entry on bafances due is
in the amount of $32,356.96 as of April 26, 2017. Interest on the judgment accruing at the legal
rate Irom the date of entry on balances due after partial satisfaction and other credits is in the
amount of $4.662.48 as of April 26, 2017. This interest was calculated based on the following:
Date Charge Deseripti | Principal Daily Interest Accrued
on of Amount Interest Interest
Charge and Days
oo ineycle of
March 12, | $79,330.81 | Original [$79,330.81 | $21.73 $15,819.44 | $15,819.44
2012 Judgment 728 days
to ($21.75 *
March 10, 728)
2014 7 4
March f1, | $7,290.90 m 1 $86,621.71 | $23.73 S1U319.21 1 $27,138.65
2014 Amended 477 days
10 Judgment ($23.73 #
July £, 2015 477 i
7
AMENDED DECLARATION OF ACCRUED INTERESTUTRECHT & LENVIN, LLP
27
28
|
$25,559.46 fo" $2181.17 ($30.73 TSi3002 133756887
Amended 14 days i
July 16, Jadginent ($30.73 *
2015 . ee 4) I
July 17, 3 : Payment | $8,654.99} $0
2018 _ 3 d
July 17, ! Principal’ | $8,651.99 | §2.37 $125.61 | $125.61
2015 tw | Interest 33 days
September minus (52.37 *
8, 2015 Payment | AS
September Payment 1 $5,226.41 30 $0
9, 2015 Behe aL
September Principal! | $5,226.41 S1A3 3702.13 $702.13
9, 2015 to Interest 491 days |
January 12, minus ($1.43 *
2017 _.L payment 491) i
Janua: Fee $140.350.14 [ $38.45 | | 34,66
Award 103 days | i
plus : (838.45 * |
Costs | 103)
$145,012.59
‘The interest column is calculated by taking the principal and multiplying it by al the legal
rate of interest of ten (10) percent which equals the yearly interest, for example: ($140,390.11 *
10%= $14,035.01). Then J took the yearly interest and divided that by 365 days which equals the
daily interest. for example: {$14,035.011 /365 = $38.43). The daily interest was then multiplied
by the number of days in the interest cycle which equals the otal interest in the interest cycle, for
example: ($38.45 * 103 days= $3,960.35).
Tam the attarncy for the Petitioners/Jucgment Creditors, | have knowledge of the facls
concerning the interest above. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the interest is currect,
if
tt
2
AMENDED DECLARATION OF ACCRUED INTERESTCHE & LENVIN, LLP
UTRE
2
a
¢
&
5
2
&
a
e
=
7
£
&
2
oO
¢
g
8
<
&
&
{declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregning is true and correct.
Dated: May 24, 2017
UTRECHT & LENVIN, LLP
ei LH
fers Priva Sanuey’ mid Micheal Sanger
; Y
3
AMENDED DECLARATION OF ACCRUED INTEREST.EJ-130
a
“Direct SEN PHGSA) hzabelhEFleeiz (SBN 27esae) oe
Uvecht & Lenvin. LLP
109 Stevenson Street, Sth Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
reeewonens. (445
coREss
vorieeci Plaintiffs Priya Sanger anc Michael Sanger
K unseen caecoe, [—" assignee or xevne:
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF San Francisco
Stafer sores: 460) McAllister Street
70600 FAS.
ction - Civic Center Branch
* Priya Sanger, Michael Sanger
PLAINTH
DEFENDANT: Leah Ahn
CoRR
(CZ) EXECUTION {Money Judgment}
CPH+12-5 11985
WRIT [T] possession oF Personal Property To CPE-12-511985
OF Reat Property [J timited civit case] Small Claims Case
SALE
: ee [ELS Untimitod civet case [J Oth
1. To the Shoriff or Marshal of the County of: San Prancisco
You are directed to enforce tho judgment described below with dally inlarest and your costs as provided by law.
2. To any registered process server: You are authorized to serve this wit only in eccurd with CCP 689 080 of CCP 718.040.
3. (Name): Priya Sanger and Michael Sanger
istne C7] judgment creditor (_} assignee of record whose address is shown on this form above the court's name
4 Judgment debtor (namo. type of egal entity stave in 9. £77 see next Page for information on reat or personal property to be
Judgment if not a natural person, ancl last known delivered under a writ of possession or sok under a wit of sale.
adress). — % (7) This wit ts isaued on 2 sister-state judgatent,
Leah Abn 11, Total judgment cescteeseee ee S PEZABLIT
851 Lombard Street 12. Costs after Judament (per filed order of *
San Francisco, CA 94133 memo CCP 685.090) cesses. 8 135,123.20
: 13. Subtotal (add Tf and 12). $ 247,304.87
14. Credits -.. $1346
LU. eee 18. Subtotal (subtract 14 from 13). =... $112,655.63
2) Additionat judgment debtors on next page 16. Interest alter judgment (per fled affidavit
§, Judgment entered on eek 7 CCP 685.050} (not an GC 6103.5 fees)...
March 11, 2014 “ 17, Fee for issuance of writ... .
6 [77] Judgment renewed on (dates): 16. Total (add 15. 46, and 17)...
18. Levying officer:
(a) Add daily interest from date of wait
(al the legal rate on 15} (not on
7. Notice of sale under this writ
a. C27 has not deen requested.
mo 7 GC 61035 fees}of |. S 30.86
b Lt has been requested (see nest page? (b} Pay directly to court costs included in
8, 2] Joint debtor information on next page. 11 and 17 (GC 6103.5, 68637;
CCP 699.5200)... 30
20. [ The amounts calfed for in itams 11-19 are diferent for each debtor.
‘These amounts are stated for each debtor on Attachment 20,
Issued on (date): Clerk, by » Deputy
[ NOTICE TO PERSON SERVED: SEE NEXT PAGE FOR IMPORTANT INFORMATION.
= page tor?
Fem peaate Opa ie WRIT OF EXECUTION Pe ee pee
_hitalal Sowret of Csor
2IAM [Ree Jeroary 1, 502 aeE430
CPP-T2-5 11985
TAINTIEE: Priva Sanger, Michael Sanger a
| véFenovet: Leah Ahn
— items continued ftom page 1—
21 [7 Additional judgment debtor (name. type of legal eniily stated
i udgment if not a natural person, and lost know address)
te a
22. (...] Notice of sale has been requested by (name and adcress):
oo =
f
aaah
toe Saat aa
23, LJ Joint debtor was destared bound by the judgment (CCP 989-99a)
a on féato}: a. on {date}
b name, type of tegal entity sialed in judament if not = &. name, type of legal entity stated in judgment if net
natural person, and last known address of jaunt debtor: a natural person, and tast known address of joint debtor:
i ot ta
© [1 adeitienat costs against cortain joint debtors fiemizep
24, [—] (ni of Possession of Wit of Sale) Judgment was entered for the foltowing:
aL] Possession of raat property: the complaint was fled on (date):
(Check (4) oF (2):
(1) [1] The Prejudgment Claim of Right to Possession was served in compliance with CCP 416.48,
The judgment includes aif tenants, subtenants, famed claimants, and other occupants of the premises.
(2) [7"} Tha Prejudgment Claim of Right to Possession was NOT served in compliance wath SCP 415.46,
(3) $ ‘was the daily rental value on the date the complaint was filed.
{6} The court wili hear abjectians to enfercement of the judgment under CCP 1474.3 on the following
dates (soecify):
».£7] Possession of personal property.
ETF it delivery cannot be tad, than for the value fliemize in 246) specified its the judgment or supplementat order
ef Sate of personal property
&.07) sale of eat property
e, Description of property:
WRIT OF EXECUTION OR SALE. Your ages and duties are indicated on the accom} anying Notice of Levy (Form EJ- 150).
O AT ROPERTY. Ifthe levying officer is nat able to take custody of the propery. the levying
officer will make @ demand upon you for the property. lf custody is not obtained following demand, the judgment may be enforced
a8 a money judgment for the value of the property specified in the judgment of in @ supplemental order,
EX her drony LIF WRIT OF EXECUTION aperoteExhibit B_ Judge David A, Garcia (Rew
» JAMS
2 Embarcadero Center
Suite 1500
San Francisco, CA 54111
Tel: ($15) 982-5267
* Fax: (415) 982-5287
JAMS ARBITRATION
PRIYA SANGER AND MICHAEL. SANGER,
CLAIMANTS,
y
LEAH ANN,
___RESPONDENT. J
Counsel:
Paul F. Unecht
Gael Bizei-Bizellot
i. dachs & Utrecht, P.C.
| 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 400
Sun Francisco, CA 94104
Y (415) 956-8100
4 Attomeys for Claimants
Katrin M. Cusack
Law Offices of Katrin M. Cusack
P.O. Bux 1287
Danville, California 94525-0287
Yelepbone: (925) 820-2300
1 Avoruey for Respondent
Arbitrator:
j, Noa. David A, Garcia, Ret
t JAMS
2 Embarcaderu Comer, Suite 1800
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: (415) 982-5267
Facsimile: (415) 982-5287
JAMS Ref. No. 1190067246
CORRECTED FINAL AWARD
Sanger. Abs
FINAL AWARD OF ARBITRATOR,
JAMS 41100067246
i
i
{Bw oN a
a
@ @
Place of Arbitration: San Fy tancisco, California
Date of Final Award; December 21, 2011
THE UNDERSIGNED ARBITRATOR, having been designated as the sole Arbitwor in
aceordance with the arbitration agreement! existing between the parties, having duly heast aod
examined the submissions, proofs and all gations of the Pardes, and having, issued az Inieriny
Award an October 31, 2011, does hereby, conclude and AWARD, es follows:
1. Introduction and Hrocedural Statement
THE UNDERSIGNED ARBITRATOR thasks each of the parties for the professional,
considerate presentation of their respective positions. The legal authorities relied upon are
principally those cited by the parties,
Claimants, Priys and Michael Sanger own 849 Lombard Street, whieh is 2 Temacy in
Common unit locuted in a three unit building commonty known as 847-846-851 Lombard Street,
Sen Francisco, Catifornia (the “Property"). Respondeat, Leah Abn owns unit 831 Lombard Srreet,
Disputes asase between the parties regarding performance of their respective dutics under the
Tenancy in Common Agreement for 847-R49-851 Lombard Strect CTICA or Agreement). [Exhibit
1} Clainuants served the Respondent Notices of Actionable Violation dated April 21,2011 and May
"31, 2031. (Exhibits £3 and i4) Thereafter the Claimants filed a Demand for Arbitration before
JAMS on July 1, 2011) The Demand for Arbitration requests that Respondent be ordered to eure:
the Notices of Actionable Violation previously served, recovery of darnages caused by the
|, Actionable Violations, and an award of attomey fees and costs. The matter was scheduled Jor
arbitration.
The Claimants specifically request by this arbitration thut the Respondent be ordered (to
Festore sums removed fiom the Operating Account without the unanimous consent of the owners,
* Arbitration clauses ace contained in Section! 4.3 of the Tenancy in Common Agreement for Bd7.849-851
Lombard Street, effective fanury 17, 2005, pursuant t0 Seetion 15.3, the date af execution by Legh Ahn,
3 AS a final eward this Award is subject to confirmation.
* The Claims contained in the Demand for Arbitration are arbitrable. The Respondent did not file a response
and the Claims are deemed denied.
1
FINAL AWARDo
a
@ @
i. (2) that Respondent be ordered to pay all property taxes owed by her in the propardon required by
| the TICA, and (3) thar Respondeat be ordered ta pay ber share of the otorgage in the amount she
| had previously agreed to pay and ul} damages the Sangers are entitled ta recover from Aho under
i
j tie TICA as a result of Ahn's breaches of the TICA.
Respondent contcnds that she Properly cemaved sums from the Operating account and
altematively that the Claimants should be estopped from claiming otherwise. She further contends
that she hax properly withheld sums owing on the mortgage bucuuse the Claimants have reneged on
their agreement to assist her in having her name added w the mortgage and having ber
predecessor's, Christ's, name remeved from the mortgage.* Respondent disputes that she has agreed
jt to pay the monty umount cizimed by the Claimants to be owed on the mortgage but rather that the
Parties have agreed to a different amount,
Prior to the hearing the panies, respectively, presented the Arbitrator Arhitration Briefs. The
evidentiary hearing occurred September 14, 2011 and September 25, 2011. At the eommencement
of the hearing, the Claimants offered Exhibits 1 ~ 25 end the Respondents offered Exhibits A - D.
During the bearing Claimant offered Exhibits 26, 27 and 30 - $5, and the Respondent offered
Exhibits E - 4 Each side offered testimony of witnesses. (Priya Sanger, Michael Sanger, Marilynne
Albers, WB. Coyle, and Leuh Abn for the Claimant; Leah Aha for Respondent}. The hearing was
not reported,
The matter was subinitted foc Interim Award’ on September 23, 2611, and the partis
theteafler stipulated that the Arbitrator should have until October 31, 2011, to issue the Interim
Award, The Interim Award issued on October 31, 201 1,
Following the issuance of the Interim Award, the Arbitrator having reserved Jurisdiction to
permit the Claimants the ‘opparnunity to apply for recovery of atiomey fees and costs, the Claimants
filed a Motion for Award of Reasonable Attomey Fees, and Costs on November 21, 2012 seeking
recovery of $58,369.29 for attomey fees and costs. The Respondent who was granted untit
“ Ahn claims that beomse her name is not on the Mortgage she has not been able to claim tax deductions,
that she [ncks aocess to loan information, and that she is justified in withholding mortgage payments. Since
has not exhausted the procedures required by the TICA for resefution of disputes, e fact she has stipulated to,
Atu's contentions are considered only insofar as they constitute defenses to the Claimants’ claims,
2
FINAL AWARDwo
S S
December 3, 2011 te file opposition to the Claiment’s application did not file oppositi
taller was submitted for Goal decision on Devember 3, 2611,
1. Faets
fhe following is a Statement of those fuety found by the Arbitrator to be inte and necessary
to the award.* To the extent that this recitation differs fom any party's position, that results fron:
i determinations as w credibility and relevance, burden of proof considerations, and the weighing of
evidence, bath oral and written.
The Sangers
sed their interest in the Property in August 2003, The Sungers and the
other original co-owners, Robert Kaplan aud Tristan Christ, entered into the TICA. The TICA
kovems the cotenanis' rights and obligations with respect to the Property. The original owners
obiained a group iean secured by a deed of trust on the Property (the mortgage). Pursuant to Exhibit
A to the TICA, the Sangers wore obligated to pay 31.875000C000% of the Mortgage, Kaplan
44.6145833333% and Christ 23.5104166667% of the Mortgage. (Exhibit t, page 49}
In December 2004, Christ sold vait 851 to Abn pursvant to the Contmet for the Sale and
Purchase of Real Property dated November 9, 2004 at a sale Price of $700,000. [Fxhibit 2} as part
of Ahn’s purchase, Ahn and the senaining owners, the Sangers and Kaplan, entered inte the First
Amendment to Tenaney in Common Agreement for 847-849-851 Lombard Street. Abu thereby
assumed all of the duties and obligations of Christ under the TICA, including his obligation to pay
his share of the Mortgage, and agreed to be bound by all the terms and conditions of the TICA.
: [Exhibit 3)
On September 12, 2007, Kaplan sold unit 847 to Alisa J. Baker (Baker). [Exhibit 4] Baker
assumed Kaplan's obligations under the TICA and the owners of the Property executed the Third
Amendment to Tenancy in Common Agreement for 847-849-851 Lombard Street, Beker thereby
agreed to be bound by sil the terms and conditions of the TICA. She however did not assume any
5 Additionat facts becessary to the resoiution of the dispute inay be included and discussed in the Analysis
section of the Interim Award.
3
FINAL AWARDte
oa
; SSSUIC 2 greater debt percentage af the morgage. As a res)
@ S
j obligations eelated to the Mortgage.* [t-xhihit 5]
The Sangers and Abn” received cash out of the sale Proceeds for unit £47 and agreed to
in Scptemther 2007, the Sengers and
j Abn increased their obligations uader the TC Mortgage. The Sangers claim: that the parties agreed
as follows: the Sangers were resporsibie te pay 74,234929372938455 of the Mortgaye and Aha
25.76507062706% $
In 2009, Aba wus appointed as the Accounts Manager.’ Pursuant to Section 6.2 of the
TICA, the Accounts Manuger shall:
* Section A2 of the Third Amendment to the TICA swtes: “Alisa J, Baker has read und fully understands all
of the terms of the Agreement and agrets lo zbide by cach and every one of them, except with respect to any
and afl obligations retsied to the .., Moripuge ... as ts which the Parties acknowledge and ugsce lisa J,
Baker shall have no fiabi
Ahn disputes that she reccived cash ourand saaintains chat sums atiributable to the cash out were
scimbursentent of a deposit for intended Bausge improvements. The seller's closing stetement reflects a debit
to the Baker in the suru of $85, 634.06 for Garage Construction costs to 847 Lomberd Street. Baker ls
assumed a similar obligation as that which Ahn hed assumed. The closing statement reflects a payarent of
340,000.00 as funds from seller for reztlocation of First Republic payoff. Ahn should heve teceived this
amount. (Exhibit 22] A check was sent to Telegraph Hilt Properties in that sum on September 17, 2007.
hibit 21}
and the Sangers the increased amount af 74.2349 fe,
of 2009. Ahn assumed the duties fron: W. B. Coyle, the Real Estete Broker for the original sellers and
huyers of ihe property. W. B. Coyle wstiied that he performed the duties es a courtesy to the owece ofthe
property. Abn coatesis the adequsey of his performance as well as his credibility, From the beginning Alin
Rerceived that the auditing of the operating accounts of the property was imperative and she ec ent
Sramine the account from its establishment in 2003, Retween March and July, 2009 she conducted the audit
excess amounts front their property. Moreover in performing the audit she has discoversd that the ‘Sangers
improperly paid themselves $25,000.00 from the operating account ($10,000.00 received as a loan and
$35,000.00 for architectural . Evidently Ms. Sanger was a casignetory on the eccount along with W.B.
added as 3 signatory to the operating account
in 2009. The sum of Abn’s claims is that the Sangers should repay the $400,006.00 in equity they removed
from the property and to assist in auditing Ahn to the mortgage of (o obtain fractional funding in the
altemative,
é
FINAL AWARDor
m
N
o
@ @
“G) use histher best efforts te collect alf funds owed to the TC" by all individuals
incfuding Cutcuants, and to munedistely notify wily Cotenants when any funds
owed to the TC ute five (5) calendar days overdue, (ii) timely pay all TC dekts to
ethers from funds in the Operating Account (regardless of whether all Cotenanty
ure curtent in their payments wo the YC) end invmediately hotity the Cotenants
when it becomes evident that funds in die Operating Account will be insufficient
fo stixfy cusrent obligations and (iit) maintain proper and somplete bauks of
account of the TL at histher home or Arincipal place of business which shail be
Oper. t6 inspection by any representative of any Cotenait at any reasonable time.”*
In December 2010, Abn, acting as the Accounts Manager, tequested that the Sanpers pay a
portion of the 2010/2011 secured Property (ax bili, “Supplemental” sad “Escape” property tx Bill,
| {Exhibits § and 9} The City imposed “Supplemental” and Escape propery tax bills because of the
purchsses by Aho and Baker of their respective urtits. The years-long delay in the assessment of the
taxes resulted from a backlog at the San Francisco Assessor's Office,
‘the Sunyers believed upon review that Aln's had incorrectly calculated the speciat
ussessment and they requested that Aku provide the calculations or the formula she. used for the
allocation of the property taxes. Ahn responded by emulling a link w the City website and by
| prosiding the following percentezes: B47: 48.5%, 849: 30.0%, and 851: 21.5%. [Lixhibit 2}
‘Yhese percentages are tue percentages of ownership interest of the owners in the Property as
listed om the Exhibit A te the TICA, and are not the percentages by which the property taxes ought
1 be aocated under Section 4.3A of the TICA, Based on Abhn's Tesponse, the Sangers concluded
that the property taxes calculations for the 21020 seoued Property (ax were also incomect and
sealized that Ahn overcharged the Sangers for the first installment of the 2010/2011 secured
Braperty tax bill.
In December 2010, Michaet Sanger met with Harvey Hecy, Senior Real Property Appraiser
of the San Francisco Assessor's Office, to confirm that the Sangess did not swe any portion of the
| “Supplemental” or “Escape” property tax Bil end 10 determine the amount of the 2010/2011
secured propery tax bill awed by each cotenant. During that meeting, Mr. Hucy confirmed that the
Sangers were not liable for any portion of the Supplemental or Escape property tax bill and he
calculated the portion owed by each Cotenant for the 2010/2011 secured property tax bills, The
Sangers informed Ahn of their findings and advised Ahn that “All taxes are allocated according to
ee.
|" Section 1.13 of the TICA defines TC ac “the group of Corenants” that are patcs to the TICA,
5
BINAL AWARD@ Pw Om a ww
>
a8
12
a
nN
28
@ @
the ptirchase price of the Property that cach co-tenant paid upon purchase of their interest.
Therefore we do nor owe any of these escape assessment back taxes.”
Section 4.3A af the TICA provides: “Ali taxes and assessments frposed upon the Property
by any government authority (the foperty taxes”) shali be allocated axcording to the ratio of the
amount cach Cotenant paid for his/her interest in the Property to the toial of the amounts paid by all
Catenants." Section 4.34 further provides: The Property Tay allocation shall be reviewed and
adjusted by the Accounts Manager cach tine (i) an ownership interest ia the Property is transferred
of (ii) tax bill or City notitication indicates an adjustment in the assessed value of the Property.”
Abn thereafter acknowledged thar the Sangers did soi owe any portinn of the
“Supplemental” or “Esvape" property tax bill.
‘The Sungers did not request a refund for the overpayment for their ‘share of the first
instalimucnt of the 201G/20L! secured Property tax bill because ihey believed thet Ahn, who had
now bcen reminded of the rules regarding the allocation of the Property uxes, would correct and
adjust the payment due by cach unil ai the time the second installment was due. The second
installment of the 2010/2011 secured ‘propery taxes for che property was dus on Monday April 11,
201.
Abn sent an email u
HT the cotenants on April 4, 2011 indicating the amount owed by each
| otenant for the second insiailment of the Property taxes. [Exhibit 10} fhe amounts charged were
based on the same'miscaiculation that Ahn used for the fitst installment, Purthermore Ahu had not
sovised or adjusivd the allocations of the second installment of the 2010/2011 secured property tax
‘bill bused on the Sangers overpayment of the first installment. On April $, 2011, Priya Sanger seat
| Abu a table showing the amount of the Property taxes due by each unit as advised by the Assessor
and informed Ahn that the Sangers had deposited into the TC operating account their share of the
second installment of the 2610;261! Property taxes. [Exhibit 10}
On April 6, 2011, Abn sent an email to the Sangers that evinced Ahn did not undersiaad the
TICA’s provisions regarding the allocation of obligation to pay the property taxes. She stated: “1
would like for Partners to have a constructive mocting to finally address matters related to the
account, We need ta setile the $25,000~ in dispate; we should review 849's calculation of property
6
FINAL AWARDS @
taxes, resalve how one unit claiming to be respansible for approximately one-fifth of the property
taxes
olds 75% of the debi on the entire building, fx the morigage, and straighten up the
balance." Exhibit 111 Priya Sanyer reminded Ahm on Apeil 7, 2011 chet the property taxes were,
valeulated based on the purchase price paid by each Cotenant, Ms. Sanver stated in her email
“property tax is nut based on owaetship pereentage. 1 is alsa not hased on debs pereratage. it is
based on what you paid for vour nronercy when vow howehi it.” Ms. Sanger also described in that
email the amount of the property taxes that she contended wax owed by cach cotenant [Exhibit 17]
On April §
2011, the Sangers' counsel Gael Nizel-Bizeliot setita fever to Alin and Baker's
attomey to remind them of the Apel 1!" deadline to pay the property taxes and provided them with
the calculation from the Assessor's office. (Exbibie 12,
On Apel 6, 2011, the Sangers learned that Ain msde several withdrawals trom the TC
operating account, witheut obtaining the TC’s approval as required under the TICA. [Exhibit Hpin
tum Baker withdrew funds from the TC opertting account and the Sangers discovered that Haker
and Abn cleared the TC account, jachiding ibe Sangers’ payment of their share of the second
installment of the 2010/2011 secured property tax bill. (Exhibit 9}
Section 5.5F of the TICA provides that “funds may be withdraw: from the ‘Operating
Account only for disbursemenis authorized under this Section". Seetion 5.$D provides that: “The
Accounts Manager may make “Non-Discretionary Disbursements” from the Operating Account
without ‘1C Approval.” Non-Discretionary Disbursements are defined under Section 53D “as
payments due for the 1C Mortgage, Property Texes, Gro2p insurance Costs, Group Usility Costs,
Group Conversion Costs, Group MRI Costs of fess than five hundred dollars {$500}, and Group
MERE Costs necessary to end an Emergency.”
a
realization that the Sangers bad withdrawn a Significent amount of their equity from their unit whea Baker
purchased her unit in s menuer ther she believes adversely affected her interest in the property. Ahn had of
Course signed the Third Amendment to the TICA whereia she acknowledged that Baker had ac
responsibility for the Mortgage
© Aho maintains duat it wes inappropriate of the Sangers te have refused to pay the second installment of the
Property taxes as demanded and that they should heve engsged in meaningful discussions to achieve a
solution.
7
FINAL AWARD.on
fh
| provides that a “majority of Cotenams must approve Discretionary Disbursentents” aad that “such
& @
Section $.SE of the TICA provides thal “Any disbursement which is not defined as a Non-
Discretionary Disbursement Shall be considered a “Discretionary Disbursement." 4 further
approval shal] be completely discretionary.” Finally, Section 5.5E Provides that “if the sum of a
particular Discretionary Disbursement and all other Discretionary Disbursements made within the
preceding three (3) month Period would exceeds one thousand five hundred dollars (31,500), the
Discretionary Disbursement must be approved by all Cotenants,”
On April 21, 2071, the Saogers served Ahn with 3 Notice of Actionable Violation!” pursuant
to Section 14.5 of the TICA. {Exhibit 13] The Notice of Actionable Violation informed Aha that in
order to cure such notice, she needed fo do all of the following by May 3, 2011:
“L. Deposit in the Operating Account the funds [sho] improperty withdrew fron
the Operating Accounts that are shown oa Exhibit A! s
2. Deposit in the Operating Account {her] share of the Property Tax, which shall
be calculated in complionce with the provisions of Section 4.3 of the TCA";
3. Deposit in the Cperating Account the sum Of $300 as liquidated damages for
her Actionable Vivlutions as required by Seetion 14.SBQ);
4. Pay any fate foe and penalty sesessed by any Bovernmental agencies sgaiust
the Property as a result of Bier) failure to pay {her} share of the secoud
installment of the 210/201 | secured property tax bill for the Property; and
5. Correct the Assessment for the Property Faxes in azcordance with Section 4,3
of the TICA.”
Aho did not comply with the demands taade by the Notice of Actionable Violation.
Commencing with the May 2011 bifl, Ako ‘stopped paying ker share of the TC Martgage,"®
Asa result, on May 31, 2011, the Sangers’ counsel served Ahn with a second Notice of Actionable
© Section 14.5 of the TICA Provides that ant “Actionable Violation” is the “fuilure to timely fulfill any
The woral Ahn withdrew without the Sangers' approval as shown on Exhibit A to Exhibit 13 is $6,460.24,
Abn and Baker have since reached an agreement with the City Tax Collsctor ro pay the taxes they awe
over time.
™ Aba lestitied that she has placed ber shace-of the mortgage in a separate account. She refissed to pay the
thai Ahn’s is 25.7751, that those sums have been paid since Ahn Prepered her accounting. They believe that
the proper amount is 72.0206% and 27.9794% as established by Exhibit 6 and which amounts Abn paid unit
8
FINAL AWARD! & @
Violation (the “Second Notice of Actionable Vielation") pursuant to Section 14.5 of the TICA.
| (ENhibit 14} The Second Notice of Actionable Violstion informed Ahn that in order so cure this
{ Secund notice, she aveded to. Puy her share of the ‘PC Mortgage for May 2971 no later dian June 1g,
20h,
Ahn refused to cure the notice and has paid her share of the TC Morigage since May 201!
into a separate account. Ske testified Ghat this action is justified because of the Sungers' intransigent
unwillingness 1 meet ta resolve ail property disputes in a constructive manner, To avoid being in
etna on the muortgage the Sangers have peid Akn’s share of the Murtyage every month since May
; ou?
TH. Analysis
A. introduction
The issues in this ease require the analysis of the eontraciual obligations of the paniies.!*
in reaching the conclusions set forth herounder, the Arbitrator, having relied on hasic
Htuciples zpplicuble to the interpretation of contrac and breaches of contracts, finds generally that
the text ef the TICA resolves any issue regarding the obligations of parties and the consequences
enributebic to the conduct of the parties.
Interpretation of a convact must stat with its text. “Phe words of 3 contract are to be
undeestood in their ordinary and popular sense, rater than according to their strict icyal tacaniag;
she prepared fer accounting in March of 2009 or for 2 years. The Sangets testified that they paid the
ineceased amaunls far the sake of peace but did not waive their Fights to have the murtguye paid as provided
in Exhibit 6.
7 On dune 16, 2011. the Sangers’ counsel served Ahn with = Nolive of Mediation as required by Section
t f the TICA, [Exhibit 15] Aan not wanting to incur the expense of mediation did pot lend. She did net
|, Fealize thst this was her oppurtunity to suek tn resolve aif of her disputes with the Sangers. She maintains
that the parties shuald meet without the assistance of x mediztor. Thereafter on June. 30,2011, in compliance
with Section 14.3 af the TIC, Sangers through their counsel served Akn with a Notice af Arbitration
it fExbihit 14
ator Found her sincere tn her belic that she has wronged
tion of frets do not excuse non-compliance with her contractual
9
FINAL AWARD1
o
@ @
unless used by the parties is a echnical Sense, ar nniess a special meaning is given w them by
usage". (Cal. Civ. Cude §16¢4} Under Califomia law, "the whole of = contract is to be takea,
tagether, so us to give effect to every pan, if reasonably practicable, cach clause Aelping to imerpret
the other." (Cul. Civ. Code §164 1] Accordingly. each provision ntust be read in ght of the others,
aS part of « unified whole, and none may be read in isolation, (See eg, Ogburn v, Travelers Ins.
Co, (19295 207 Cai. 50, 52-33)
B, Unauthorized Withdrawals from the TC Account
As stated in Alin's email of Apri 6, 2011 [Exhibit 11], Abn withdrew from the TC account
atloged overpayments. These withdrawals are shown on the Bank Statement aad cancelled checks
attached as Exhibit A to the Notice of Actionable Violation, [Exhibit 13] None of the withdawals
are “Non-Diseretionary Disbursement”. Therefore, Ahn was required to follow the rates of Section
S.SE te make any af these withdrawals, Because the total amount of the withdrawals is $6,460.24
and exceeded the $1.500 limit imposed by Section SSE and because the withdrawals were made
within Jess then three months, Ahn wes required to obtain the approval of ali votenants before
withdrawing these funds from the TC Accouat, However, Ahn did not give any prior natice of the
Withdrawals to the Sangers, fet alone obtain the Sangers’ approval as raynired by the TICA,
Consequently, Akn breached Section 5.5 of the TICA snd is obligated to restore the sum of
$6,460.24 to the operating account.!”
C. Allocation and Payment of Property Taxes
Section 4.3 of the TICA provides in pertinent par that all “ taxes and assessments snposed
upon the Property by any governmental authority (the “Property Taxes) shal! be allocated
according to the ratio of the amount cach Cotenant paid for histher interest in de Propeny to the
total of the amounts paid by all Cotenants, [.-] The property tax allocation shall be reviewed and
adjusted hy the Accounts Manager each tin (an ownership interest in the Propeny is teansferred
oF Gi) tax bill or City notification indicates an adjustment in the assessed value of the Property."
* Abn believed that the Sangers approved this as part of a reimbursement paid because of her reconciliation
of the accounts. However what she received was silence and nan-participation and the T1CA requires
effirmative action.
* Section 4.3 is consistent with Article XULA of the Californix Constitution {"Propositina 13”), Proposition
; 13 established the base year value eoncept for property tax assessments, Under Proposition 13, ennual
10
FINAL AWARD,\
Qo O27 OD maw ny
S @
Section 6.2A provides that the Accousts Manager shall: “timely pay all TC debe ie others
from funds in die Operating Account (regardiess of Whether all Cotenants ure curves in their
, Payments to de TC} and inunediately notify all Cotenants when it becomes evideat that finds in
the Operating Account vall be insufficient to sutisty cussent obligations,”
While acting as the Accounts Manager, Aln allocated the 20102011 secured proporty tax
| bill for the Property zecording i the Percentages of ownership of each cotenant!™ and nat based on
the formula described in Section 43 of the TCA. As previously noted, under Section 4.3, each:
vatenant shall pay his or her share of the property taxes based on the purchase price tha: suck
cotenant paid for his or her TIC interest ia the Property. Any increase in the Pripery taxes
iriggered by a vanafer of a TIC interest in the Property shail be paid by the new buyer, The tox
basis of Ute remaining cotonanis does not change except as provided in Proposition 13. Therefore,
by eppiying the incorrect formula, Abn breached Section 4.3 and Section 6.2 of the TICA and was
obligated to correct the allocation 2
In addition, Aha included in her calculetion the amowst due under the Supplemental and
Escape property tax bills, whick was wiggered by the transfers of # TIC Interest respectively to Ain.
December 2003 and to Baker in September 2007. [Exhthir 8} Pursuant to Scetion 4,3 of the TICA,
| the new owners shall pay these