Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA - COUNTY 0F FRESNO En1ered by:
Civil Department - Non-lelfed
0F CASE:
TITLE ,
Lucky Lee Gold vs. Monallsa Berbey/LEAD CASE
Case Number:
sg(CORRECTED) LAW AND MOTIONMINUTE ORDER “ceceozzéo
Hearing Date: March 04, 2019 Hearing Type: Chambers/Motion -Reconsideration
Department: 403 Judge/Temp. Judge: McGuire, Rosemary
Coun Clerk: Sullivan, Krystal Repoxfler/Tope: NR
Appearing Paflies:
'
Plaintiff: Defendant:
‘
Counsel: No Appedrances _
Counsel: No Appearances
[X] Court orders Stay lifted.
[
]Confinued10 [
]Seffor _ of _ DepT._ for‘_
I
[ ]Submified on points and authorities wifh/withouf argument. [ ]
Matter is argued and submitted.
[ ]
Upon filing of points and authorities.
’[
[]
Motion isgranted ]
in pan 0nd denied in port. [ ]
Motion isdenied [ ]
wiTh/withouf prejudice.
[x]
Taken under out from advisement.
[
]Demurrer [
]overruled [ lsustoined with _ days to [
]onswer [
]a;nend
[X] Tentative ruling AS MODIFIED becomes the order of the coufl. No further order isnecessary.
[X] Pursuant 10 CRC 3.1312(6) and CCP section 1019.5(0), no further order isnecessary. The minute order adopflng the ‘
tentailve rullng AS MODIFIED serves as {he order of the coufl.
[X] Servlce by the clerk willconsfllute notice of the order.
[]
See attached copy on the Tentative Ruling.
[1
Judgmenf deb10r_ sworn and examined.
[
’]
Judgment deb10r_ foiled To appear.
Bench warrant issued in the amount of $ _
JUDGMENT:
[ ]
Money damages [ ]
Default [ ]
Other _ entered in The amount of:
Principal$_ Interest$_ Costs $_ ATforneyfees $_ Tofol $_ _
[ ]
Claim of exempfion []
granted [ ]
denied. Court orders withholdings modified to $_ per_
FU RTHER. COURT ORDERS:
[ ]
Monies held by levying officer’ro be [ ]
released To judgment creditor. [ ]
returned To judgment debtor.
[] $_ to be released 10 judgment creditor and balance returned Tojudgmenf debtor. .
[]
Levying Officer, CounTy of _, notified. [ ]
Writ 10 issue
[]
Notice To be filed within 15'dcys. [ ]
Restitufion of Premises
[X] Other: Having been greviouslx taken under advisement the Court rules as follows: See attached Order Afler Hearing.
CV-14b R03-18
F-—
IA__.|_L__.
LAW AND MOTION MINUTE ORDER
(I7) _
OrderAflerHearingv
F” L :4-
Re: Gold v. Berbey, %al. MAR 0 l, 23:9
COU” C059 NO' CECGO2260
~
FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
By
Hearing Date: February 21, 2019 (Dept. 403) DEPUTY
>
Motion: Gold's Application for Writ of Attachment
Ruling:
To deny without prejudice.
Explanation:
A plaintiff hos "the burden of proving (l) fhdt his claim is one upon which on
attachment may be issued and (2) the probable validity _of such claim." (Loeb & Loeb
v. Beverly Glen Music, Inc. (1985) 166 Col.App.3d 1110, 1116.)
Claim Supports Attachment:
Attachment is expressly authorized under Civil Code section 3439.07, subdivision
(0H2), which provides that in on action for relief under the UVTA the creditor may
obtain "[aln attachment or other provisional remedy against the asset transferred or
other property of the transferee" “in accordance with the procedures described in Tifle
6.5 (commencing with Section 481 .OI 0) of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure." This
provides one of the statutory exceptions to the usual rule of Code of Civil Procedure
section 483.010, subdivision (o) that on attachment may issue only “upon a contract
express or implied, where the total amount of the claim or claims is o fixed or readily
oscertoinoble omoum‘ n01 less than five hundred dollars ($500) exclusive of costs,
interest, and attorney's fees."
Probable Validity of Claim:
Thefcpplicotion for o writ of attachment “shall be supported by an affidavit
showing 1h‘of the plaintiff on the facts presented would
be entitled to c judgment on
the claim upon which the attachment is based." (Code Civ. Proc.,§ 485.210, subd.
(0).) This must be done by admissible evidence. (See Rylocrsdom.& Edmon, Civil
Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 20] 8) "Provisional Remedies" § 9:947.5, citing
Generale Bank Nederland N. V. v. Eyes of the Beholder Ltd. (
I 998) 61 Cal.AppATh 1385,
1390.) -
“[Dlocuments must be authenticated in some fashion before they ore admissible
in evidence." (Continental Baking Co. v.Katz' (1 968) 68 Col.2d 512, 525; Evid. Code, §
I400 et seq.) Authentication of a writing means (o) the introduction of evidence
sufficient to sustain o finding fhot the writing that the proponent of the evidence
i1 is
claims it'Is
or (b) the establishment of such facts by any other means provided by low.
(Evid. Code, § 1400. )
Here, the evidence offered in support of the writ of attachment ore The
declaration of Gold 0nd his attorney. The attorney only authenticates various legal
documents Gold' s declaration states that he filed his Request for Order of
reimbursement related 10 the Son Clemente home on August 15, 201 5. On September
18, 2015, prior to any hearing on this application, Berbey wired $1 50 000 from one of her
accounts to Londhome Investments, LLC. Gold contends, on information 0nd belief,
this was o down payment for certain real property In Amcdor County. He‘ attaches o
document allegedly from o Title company showing the property sold for $2, 300, 000, on
December 6 201 6, ’ro Cedar Mills LLC.
f Berbey and Schoonover declare that this $1 50, 000 was the proceeds of o loan
token out by Schoonover and run through Berbey' s account as on accommodation.
They further declare that the $1 50, 000 which was paid more than one year before the
sole closed, was only for a purchase option.‘
A1 oral argument, Gold‘s Counsel submitted an unsigned, uncerfified excerpt of
the deposition of Bryon Schoonover. token March 6, 20] 8. The cour1 may receive oral
testimony, or additional documentary evidence or points and authorities, upon a
showing of “good cause." (Code Civ. Proc., § 485.240, subd. (d).) This_excerpf boners
Schoonover‘s claim that the Ioon from Lowers was to him clone and not to Berbey.
although Berbey received some $1 5,000 from The loan. It does not establish tho? any of
The $150, 000 paid from Berbey‘ s account went to ’rhe purchase of the Amador County
real property.
Finally Gold offered the uncuthen’ricoied Buyer's Final Settlement Stofemenf
from FirstAmen‘con Title relating to Cedar Mills’ purchase of the Amodor County land.
Gold points to the entry for "seller" credit of $330,000 and argu‘es that, mathematically,
this amount includes the $1 50,000 “option money" from Berbey, proving Berbey's
money was sued to purchase the land. However, this, isfor from obvious or certain.
On this evidence, Gold hos nof met his burden of proof under Code of Civil
Procedure section 485.21 O of showing the proboble‘volidity of his fraudulent transfer
claim.
"The Uniform'Froudulenf Transfer Act codified in Civil Code section 3439 et
seq., ‘permifs defrauded creditors to reoCh property in the honds of o transferee! T'
” 'A fraudulent conveyance
(Filipv. Bucurenciu (2005) 129 Cal.AppATh 825, 829 (Filip).)
is a transfer by the debtor of propefly 10 c third person undertaken with the intent to
prevent o creditor from reaching That interest to satisfy ifs claim.‘ [Citation] A transfer
under the UFTA is defined os 'every mode, direct or indirect, absolute or conditional,
voluntary or involuntary, of disposing of or porting with an asset and includes
payment of money, release, lease, 0nd creation of o lien'or'other e'ncumbronce.’
[Citation.]" (Kirkeby v. Superior Court (2004) 33 Col.4th 642, 648.) “Whether a _
conveyance wos mode with fraudulent intent is a quesfion of fact, ond proof often
consists of inferences from the circumsmnces surrounding the transfer." (Filip,supra, 129
C0l.App.41h at p. 834.)
CivilCode section 3439.04, subdivision (b), contains a nonexclusive Iis1 of factors
thoi may be considered in discerning a debtor's actual intent. These factors, known cs
"
“the “badges of froud' (Filip, supra. 129 Col.App.41h of p. 834), include “(1) Whether
-1he transfer was To on insider. Whether the debtor retained possession or
[1]] (2)
control of the property fransferred offer the transfer. [1]](3) Whether the transfer was
disclosed or concealed. [1|](4) Whether before the transfer wcs mode The debtor
had beenlsued or threatened with suit.[1]] (5) Whether the transfer was of substantially
allthe debtors assets. [1]] [1|](9) Whether the debtorwos insolvent or become
insolvent shortly cflerfhe transfer was mode [1|] (1 l)
[1]] Whetherfhe debtor
Transferred the essential assets of the business to a lienor that transferred the assets to
on insider of the debtor." (Civ. Code, § 3439.04, subd. (b).) “There is no minimum
number of factors that must be present before the scales fip in favor of finding of actual
intent to defraud." (Filip, supra, 129 Cal.AppA'" 0t p. 834.) The "confluence of several
[badges of fraud] con constitute conclusive evidence of actual intent to defraud,
absent “significantly clecr' evidence of a legitimate supervening purpose." (In re
Acequia, Inc. (91h Cir. I994) 34 F.3d 800, 806.) Even without an actual fraudulent intent,
o transfer may be fraudulent cs to present creditors if the debtor did not receive "o
reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer" and “the debtor become
insolvent as a result of the transfer or obligation." (Civ. Code, § 3439.05, subd. (0).)
Here, Gold's assertion that the $1 50,000 was a down payment for the Amodor
County property is made only on information and belief. A declaration mode on
information and belief does not provide competent evidence of_fhe facts stated
therein. (Brown v. Superior Court [1987) 189 Col.App.3d 260. 265.) ”An affidavit based
on ‘informcfion and belief' 'is hearsay and must be disregarded." (Star Motor Imports,
Inc. v. Supen'or Court T979) 88 Ccl.App.3d 201, 204.)
(
The fact that the Orange County coud hos issued new orders orjudgments in
favor of Gold relating to the sole of the Son Clemente property is irrelevant as Gold's
current Second Amended Consolidated complaint is not based on the existence of
any such orders orjudgments.
At the hearing, Gold argued that the writ of attachment should be granted .
because Judge Simpson issued the writ in September of 201 7. However, of the time the
wri1 was issued, the complaint alleged collection of judgment causes of action. Now
the UFTA is based solely on on unliquido’red debt. Thus, The procedural posture of the
case was different of the fime the writ issued.
Llssued By: {Q7714 J/I7L/
on i7
(Judge‘s initials) (Date)
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA - COUNTY 0F FRESNO V
FOR COURTUSE ONL Y
'
Civil Department, Central Division
1130 "O" Street
Fresno,CaIifornia 93724-0002
'
'
(559) 457-2000
TITLE OF CASE:
,Lucky Lee Gold vs. Monalisa BerbeylLEAD CASE
CLERK'S CERTIFICATE'OF MAILING Cfiiéggggigéo
lcertify that|am not a party to this cause and fhat a true copy of the: _
3-4-1 9 Corrected Chambers minute order/ Order After Hearing
was placed ina sealed envelope and placed for collection and mailing on the date and at the place shown below
following our ordinary business practice. |am readily familiar with this court’s practice for collecting and processing
correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited.
in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service with postage fully prepaid.
'
r'OIM‘ f:
j ':v\X
Place ofmailing: Fresno, California 93724-0002 fieflafifiv
:Jf-R
"
w
t
0n Date: 03/14/2019 Clerk, by , , Deputy
S. Garcia
Robert F. Kull Gregory G. Brown
Kull + Hall LLP Brown & Charbonneau
1337 Ocean Ave # B 420 Exchange
Santa Monica, CA 90401 Suite 270
Irvine, CA 92602
Paolo H. Visante Justin D. Harris
350 University AVE Justin D Harris
‘
STE 200 Harris Law Firm PC
Sacramento, CA 95825 71 10 N. Fresno St, Ste 400
.
Fresno, CA 93720
Martin N. Jensen
Porter] Scott
A Professional Corporation
350 University Avenue, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825
D Clerk's Certificate of Mailing Additional Address Page Attached
TGN-06b R08-06 CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA - COUNTY 0F FRESNO En1ered by: Civil Department - Non-lelfed 0F CASE: TITLE , Lucky Lee Gold vs. Monallsa Berbey/LEAD CASE Case Number: sg(CORRECTED) LAW AND MOTIONMINUTE ORDER “ceceozzéo Hearing Date: March 04, 2019 Hearing Type: Chambers/Motion -Reconsideration Department: 403 Judge/Temp. Judge: McGuire, Rosemary Coun Clerk: Sullivan, Krystal Repoxfler/Tope: NR Appearing Paflies: ' Plaintiff: Defendant: ‘ Counsel: No Appedrances _ Counsel: No Appearances [X] Court orders Stay lifted. [ ]Confinued10 [ ]Seffor _ of _ DepT._ for‘_ I [ ]Submified on points and authorities wifh/withouf argument. [ ] Matter is argued and submitted. [ ] Upon filing of points and authorities. ’[ [] Motion isgranted ] in pan 0nd denied in port. [ ] Motion isdenied [ ] wiTh/withouf prejudice. [x] Taken under out from advisement. [ ]Demurrer [ ]overruled [ lsustoined with _ days to [ ]onswer [ ]a;nend [X] Tentative ruling AS MODIFIED becomes the order of the coufl. No further order isnecessary. [X] Pursuant 10 CRC 3.1312(6) and CCP section 1019.5(0), no further order isnecessary. The minute order adopflng the ‘ tentailve rullng AS MODIFIED serves as {he order of the coufl. [X] Servlce by the clerk willconsfllute notice of the order. [] See attached copy on the Tentative Ruling. [1 Judgmenf deb10r_ sworn and examined. [ ’] Judgment deb10r_ foiled To appear. Bench warrant issued in the amount of $ _ JUDGMENT: [ ] Money damages [ ] Default [ ] Other _ entered in The amount of: Principal$_ Interest$_ Costs $_ ATforneyfees $_ Tofol $_ _ [ ] Claim of exempfion [] granted [ ] denied. Court orders withholdings modified to $_ per_ FU RTHER. COURT ORDERS: [ ] Monies held by levying officer’ro be [ ] released To judgment creditor. [ ] returned To judgment debtor. [] $_ to be released 10 judgment creditor and balance returned Tojudgmenf debtor. . [] Levying Officer, CounTy of _, notified. [ ] Writ 10 issue [] Notice To be filed within 15'dcys. [ ] Restitufion of Premises [X] Other: Having been greviouslx taken under advisement the Court rules as follows: See attached Order Afler Hearing. CV-14b R03-18 F-— IA__.|_L__. LAW AND MOTION MINUTE ORDER (I7) _ OrderAflerHearingv F” L :4- Re: Gold v. Berbey, %al. MAR 0 l, 23:9 COU” C059 NO' CECGO2260 ~ FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT By Hearing Date: February 21, 2019 (Dept. 403) DEPUTY > Motion: Gold's Application for Writ of Attachment Ruling: To deny without prejudice. Explanation: A plaintiff hos "the burden of proving (l) fhdt his claim is one upon which on attachment may be issued and (2) the probable validity _of such claim." (Loeb & Loeb v. Beverly Glen Music, Inc. (1985) 166 Col.App.3d 1110, 1116.) Claim Supports Attachment: Attachment is expressly authorized under Civil Code section 3439.07, subdivision (0H2), which provides that in on action for relief under the UVTA the creditor may obtain "[aln attachment or other provisional remedy against the asset transferred or other property of the transferee" “in accordance with the procedures described in Tifle 6.5 (commencing with Section 481 .OI 0) of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure." This provides one of the statutory exceptions to the usual rule of Code of Civil Procedure section 483.010, subdivision (o) that on attachment may issue only “upon a contract express or implied, where the total amount of the claim or claims is o fixed or readily oscertoinoble omoum‘ n01 less than five hundred dollars ($500) exclusive of costs, interest, and attorney's fees." Probable Validity of Claim: Thefcpplicotion for o writ of attachment “shall be supported by an affidavit showing 1h‘of the plaintiff on the facts presented would be entitled to c judgment on the claim upon which the attachment is based." (Code Civ. Proc.,§ 485.210, subd. (0).) This must be done by admissible evidence. (See Rylocrsdom.& Edmon, Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 20] 8) "Provisional Remedies" § 9:947.5, citing Generale Bank Nederland N. V. v. Eyes of the Beholder Ltd. ( I 998) 61 Cal.AppATh 1385, 1390.) - “[Dlocuments must be authenticated in some fashion before they ore admissible in evidence." (Continental Baking Co. v.Katz' (1 968) 68 Col.2d 512, 525; Evid. Code, § I400 et seq.) Authentication of a writing means (o) the introduction of evidence sufficient to sustain o finding fhot the writing that the proponent of the evidence i1 is claims it'Is or (b) the establishment of such facts by any other means provided by low. (Evid. Code, § 1400. ) Here, the evidence offered in support of the writ of attachment ore The declaration of Gold 0nd his attorney. The attorney only authenticates various legal documents Gold' s declaration states that he filed his Request for Order of reimbursement related 10 the Son Clemente home on August 15, 201 5. On September 18, 2015, prior to any hearing on this application, Berbey wired $1 50 000 from one of her accounts to Londhome Investments, LLC. Gold contends, on information 0nd belief, this was o down payment for certain real property In Amcdor County. He‘ attaches o document allegedly from o Title company showing the property sold for $2, 300, 000, on December 6 201 6, ’ro Cedar Mills LLC. f Berbey and Schoonover declare that this $1 50, 000 was the proceeds of o loan token out by Schoonover and run through Berbey' s account as on accommodation. They further declare that the $1 50, 000 which was paid more than one year before the sole closed, was only for a purchase option.‘ A1 oral argument, Gold‘s Counsel submitted an unsigned, uncerfified excerpt of the deposition of Bryon Schoonover. token March 6, 20] 8. The cour1 may receive oral testimony, or additional documentary evidence or points and authorities, upon a showing of “good cause." (Code Civ. Proc., § 485.240, subd. (d).) This_excerpf boners Schoonover‘s claim that the Ioon from Lowers was to him clone and not to Berbey. although Berbey received some $1 5,000 from The loan. It does not establish tho? any of The $150, 000 paid from Berbey‘ s account went to ’rhe purchase of the Amador County real property. Finally Gold offered the uncuthen’ricoied Buyer's Final Settlement Stofemenf from FirstAmen‘con Title relating to Cedar Mills’ purchase of the Amodor County land. Gold points to the entry for "seller" credit of $330,000 and argu‘es that, mathematically, this amount includes the $1 50,000 “option money" from Berbey, proving Berbey's money was sued to purchase the land. However, this, isfor from obvious or certain. On this evidence, Gold hos nof met his burden of proof under Code of Civil Procedure section 485.21 O of showing the proboble‘volidity of his fraudulent transfer claim. "The Uniform'Froudulenf Transfer Act codified in Civil Code section 3439 et seq., ‘permifs defrauded creditors to reoCh property in the honds of o transferee! T' ” 'A fraudulent conveyance (Filipv. Bucurenciu (2005) 129 Cal.AppATh 825, 829 (Filip).) is a transfer by the debtor of propefly 10 c third person undertaken with the intent to prevent o creditor from reaching That interest to satisfy ifs claim.‘ [Citation] A transfer under the UFTA is defined os 'every mode, direct or indirect, absolute or conditional, voluntary or involuntary, of disposing of or porting with an asset and includes payment of money, release, lease, 0nd creation of o lien'or'other e'ncumbronce.’ [Citation.]" (Kirkeby v. Superior Court (2004) 33 Col.4th 642, 648.) “Whether a _ conveyance wos mode with fraudulent intent is a quesfion of fact, ond proof often consists of inferences from the circumsmnces surrounding the transfer." (Filip,supra, 129 C0l.App.41h at p. 834.) CivilCode section 3439.04, subdivision (b), contains a nonexclusive Iis1 of factors thoi may be considered in discerning a debtor's actual intent. These factors, known cs " “the “badges of froud' (Filip, supra. 129 Col.App.41h of p. 834), include “(1) Whether -1he transfer was To on insider. Whether the debtor retained possession or [1]] (2) control of the property fransferred offer the transfer. [1]](3) Whether the transfer was disclosed or concealed. [1|](4) Whether before the transfer wcs mode The debtor had beenlsued or threatened with suit.[1]] (5) Whether the transfer was of substantially allthe debtors assets. [1]] [1|](9) Whether the debtorwos insolvent or become insolvent shortly cflerfhe transfer was mode [1|] (1 l) [1]] Whetherfhe debtor Transferred the essential assets of the business to a lienor that transferred the assets to on insider of the debtor." (Civ. Code, § 3439.04, subd. (b).) “There is no minimum number of factors that must be present before the scales fip in favor of finding of actual intent to defraud." (Filip, supra, 129 Cal.AppA'" 0t p. 834.) The "confluence of several [badges of fraud] con constitute conclusive evidence of actual intent to defraud, absent “significantly clecr' evidence of a legitimate supervening purpose." (In re Acequia, Inc. (91h Cir. I994) 34 F.3d 800, 806.) Even without an actual fraudulent intent, o transfer may be fraudulent cs to present creditors if the debtor did not receive "o reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer" and “the debtor become insolvent as a result of the transfer or obligation." (Civ. Code, § 3439.05, subd. (0).) Here, Gold's assertion that the $1 50,000 was a down payment for the Amodor County property is made only on information and belief. A declaration mode on information and belief does not provide competent evidence of_fhe facts stated therein. (Brown v. Superior Court [1987) 189 Col.App.3d 260. 265.) ”An affidavit based on ‘informcfion and belief' 'is hearsay and must be disregarded." (Star Motor Imports, Inc. v. Supen'or Court T979) 88 Ccl.App.3d 201, 204.) ( The fact that the Orange County coud hos issued new orders orjudgments in favor of Gold relating to the sole of the Son Clemente property is irrelevant as Gold's current Second Amended Consolidated complaint is not based on the existence of any such orders orjudgments. At the hearing, Gold argued that the writ of attachment should be granted . because Judge Simpson issued the writ in September of 201 7. However, of the time the wri1 was issued, the complaint alleged collection of judgment causes of action. Now the UFTA is based solely on on unliquido’red debt. Thus, The procedural posture of the case was different of the fime the writ issued. Llssued By: {Q7714 J/I7L/ on i7 (Judge‘s initials) (Date) SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA - COUNTY 0F FRESNO V FOR COURTUSE ONL Y ' Civil Department, Central Division 1130 "O" Street Fresno,CaIifornia 93724-0002 ' ' (559) 457-2000 TITLE OF CASE: ,Lucky Lee Gold vs. Monalisa BerbeylLEAD CASE CLERK'S CERTIFICATE'OF MAILING Cfiiéggggigéo lcertify that|am not a party to this cause and fhat a true copy of the: _ 3-4-1 9 Corrected Chambers minute order/ Order After Hearing was placed ina sealed envelope and placed for collection and mailing on the date and at the place shown below following our ordinary business practice. |am readily familiar with this court’s practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited. in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service with postage fully prepaid. ' r'OIM‘ f: j ':v\X Place ofmailing: Fresno, California 93724-0002 fieflafifiv :Jf-R " w t 0n Date: 03/14/2019 Clerk, by , , Deputy S. Garcia Robert F. Kull Gregory G. Brown Kull + Hall LLP Brown & Charbonneau 1337 Ocean Ave # B 420 Exchange Santa Monica, CA 90401 Suite 270 Irvine, CA 92602 Paolo H. Visante Justin D. Harris 350 University AVE Justin D Harris ‘ STE 200 Harris Law Firm PC Sacramento, CA 95825 71 10 N. Fresno St, Ste 400 . Fresno, CA 93720 Martin N. Jensen Porter] Scott A Professional Corporation 350 University Avenue, Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95825 D Clerk's Certificate of Mailing Additional Address Page Attached TGN-06b R08-06 CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING