Starcevic vs. Pentech Financial Services Inc (2013-76632)
The Court having reviewed the trial briefs submitted by various parties, as well as the entire file in the matter, now issues its intended decision on the bifurcated trial by brief. No appearances required. This is a partition action brought by the owners of four parcels of real property. ROA # 1 [Complaint], ¶ 10.1 The defendants are each lien holders or judgment creditors. Id. at ¶ 5. The parties agreed that the properties could be sold, with the Court to then determine the priority of such liens. ROA # 202 [Stipulated Interlocutory Judgment] at ¶¶ 1, 7. Three of the four properties have been sold, with the parties agreeing to such sales. (Apparently the judgment liens against Peter Starcevic have been satisfied out his share of proceeds from sales of the three properties which have been sold.) However, the fourth property (referred to as the "Mt. Miguel property") has not been sold. Plaintiffs are requesting that, in additio
Hearing Date
January 03, 2019
Category
Civil - Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Starcevic vs. Pentech Financial Services Inc (2013-76632)
The Court having reviewed the trial briefs submitted by various parties, as well as the entire file in the matter, now issues its intended decision on the bifurcated trial by brief. No appearances required. This is a partition action brought by the owners of four parcels of real property. ROA # 1 [Complaint], ¶ 10.1 The defendants are each lien holders or judgment creditors. Id. at ¶ 5. The parties agreed that the properties could be sold, with the Court to then determine the priority of such liens. ROA # 202 [Stipulated Interlocutory Judgment] at ¶¶ 1, 7. Three of the four properties have been sold, with the parties agreeing to such sales. (Apparently the judgment liens against Peter Starcevic have been satisfied out his share of proceeds from sales of the three properties which have been sold.) However, the fourth property (referred to as the "Mt. Miguel property") has not been sold. Plaintiffs are requesting that, in additio