Source: https://trellis.law/ca/motion-type/motion-to-expunge-lis-pendens-204
Timestamp: 2020-07-12 04:17:17
Document Index: 139630517

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 405', '§ 405', '§ 405', '§ 405', '§ 405', '§ 405', '§ 405', '§ 405', '§ 405', '§ 405', '§ 405', '§ 405', '§405']

What is a Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens?
“The whole idea of a notice of lis pendens is to give constructive notice of the legal proceeding affecting title to a specific piece of property.” (Gale v. Super. Ct. (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1388, 1396.) “A party to an action who asserts a real property claim may record a notice of pendency of action in which that real property claim is alleged. The notice may be recorded in the office of the recorder of each county in which all or part of the real property is situated.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 405.20.)
“While the lis pendens statute was designed to give notice to third parties and not to aid plaintiffs in pursuing claims, the practical effect of a recorded lis pendens is to render a defendant's property unmarketable and unsuitable as security for a loan. The financial pressure exerted on the property owner may be considerable, forcing him to settle not due to the merits of the suit but to rid himself of the cloud upon his title. The potential for abuse is obvious. Because of the effect of a lis pendens, [t]he history of the lis pendens legislation indicates a legislative intent to restrict rather than broaden the application of the remedy.” (Kirkeby v. Super. Ct. of Orange Cty. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 642, 651.)
Expunging the Notice
At any time after notice of pendency of action has been recorded, any party, or any nonparty with an interest in the real property affected thereby, may apply to the court in which the action is pending to expunge the notice. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 405.30.)
In proceedings under this chapter, the court shall order a lis pendens expunged if it finds the pleading on which the lis pendens is based does not contain a real property claim, and in making that evaluation, the court engages in a demurrer-like analysis. (Kirkeby v. Super. Ct. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 642, 647.) Rather than analyzing whether the pleading states any claim at all, as on a general demurrer, the court must undertake the more limited analysis of whether the pleading states a real property claim. (Id.) A real property claim is one in which, if meritorious, would affect the title to, or the right of possession of, specific real property. (Code Civ. Proc., § 405.4.) Review involves only a review of the adequacy of the pleading and normally should not involve evidence from either side, other than possibly that which may be judicially noticed as on a demurrer. (Kirkeby v. Super. Ct. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 642, 647.)
The court shall also order that the notice be expunged if the court finds that the claimant has not established by a preponderance of the evidence the probable validity of the real property claim. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 405.32; Ziello v. Super. Ct. (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 321, 331-332; Kirkeby v. Super. Ct. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 642, 648.) “‘Probable validity,’ with respect to a real property claim, means that it is more likely than not that the claimant will obtain a judgment against the defendant on the claim.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 405.3.)
To establish “probable validity,” “a claimant must prove more than that he recorded the lis pendens in good faith and without ulterior motives. He must make a showing that he is likely to prevail on the merits, in much the same fashion as one seeking an attachment must show the probable merit of the underlying lawsuit.” (Amalgamated Bank v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1003, 1011-1012.) A claimant may prove probable validity by offering evidence, declarations, or oral testimony. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 405.30.)
Unlike most other motions, the burden of proof is on the party opposing the motion to expunge. (Malcolm v. Super. Ct. (1981) 29 Cal.3d 518, 525-526.)
Useful Rulings on Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens
REZAPOUR VS. U.S. BANK
HEARING ON MOTION TO EXPUNGE LIS PENDENS & FOR ATTORNEY FEES FILED BY U.S. BANK N.A., et al. * TENTATIVE RULING: * Before the Court is a motion to expunge lis pendens filed by Defendants U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee for Banc of America Funding Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-7 (“U.S. Bank”) and Nationstar Mortgage LLC d/b/a Mr. Cooper (“Nationstar”) (col...
..to amend. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of that order on September 28, 2018. Plaintiffs recorded a notice of lis pendens on October 1, 2018. Defendants submitted the signed judgment for filing the same day. Judgment was entered on October 3, 2019. Notice of entry of judgment was filed the same day. Defendants filed the instant motion on February 19, 2019. For the following reasons, the moti...
Vincent Robbins et al vs Deutsche Bank National Trust Co
Nature of Proceedings: Motion Expunge Lis Pendens Motion of Defendant Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Ruling: As set forth herein, the motion of defendant Deutsche Bank to expunge notice of lis pendens is granted. Defendant Deutsche Bank’s request for an award of attorney’s fees and costs is denied. Background: This is a motion to expunge notice of lis pendens following a jud...
..ndant’s Amended Request for Judicial Notice [“ARJN”], exhibit B [trustee’s deed upon sale].) The trustee’s deed upon sale conveyed title to the Property to defendant Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (“Bank”) and was recorded in the real estate records of Santa Barbara County on October 4, 2011. In connection with this action, on November 20, 2012, plaintiffs recorded in the real estate record...
Jose Barron v. The Bank of New York Mellon, etc.
Nature of Proceedings: Motion to Expunge List Pendens Santa Barbara County Superior Court Department 5 Judge Colleen K. Sterne Tentative Ruling November 28, 2011 Case: Jose Barron v. The Bank of New York Mellon, etc. Case No. 1372848 Matter: Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens Tentative Ruling: Grant Discussion: Motion: The motion seeks to expunge the Lis Pendens record...
..a “real property claim.” Section 405.4 defines a “real property claim” to include an action that affects title to or the right to possession of specific real property, or use of an easement identified in the pleading, other than a public utility easement. Under Section 405.31, the court must order a Lis Pendens expunged if it finds the pleading on which the Lis Pendens is based does not contain a...
David Gates vs MGC Mortgage Inc et al
Nature of Proceedings: Motion Expunge Notice of Pendency of Action Motion of Defendants LPP Mortgage LTD., LP and MGC Mortgage, Inc., to Expunge Lis Pendens Ruling: For the reasons set forth herein, the motion of defendants LPP Mortgage LTD., LP, and MGC Mortgage, Inc., to expunge lis pendens is granted. The notices of lis pendens recorded on April 25, 2012, as document number 2012-0006983, an...
..no Road, Santa Barbara, California (the Property). (FAC, ¶¶ 1-3, 12.) The Property secures a loan to Gates through a deed of trust (DOT). (FAC, ¶ 12-13.) The lender’s interest in the DOT was ultimately transferred to defendant LPP Mortgage LTD., LP (LPP). (FAC, ¶¶ 7, 23, 26.) Defendant MGC Mortgage, Inc., (MGC) services Gates’s loan on behalf of LPP. (FAC, ¶ 5.) In the FAC, Gates disputed the vali...
Ness Carroll, et al. v. Patrick Galligan, et al.
Nature of Proceedings: Motion Expunge Lis Pendens CASE: Ness Carroll, et al. v. Patrick Galligan, et al. Case No. 1468200 (Judge Sterne) HEARING DATE: June 20, 2016 MATTER: Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens ATTORNEYS: Malcolm R. Taylor for plaintiffs Ness Carroll and Richard Meaney John Sorich for defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. TENTATIVE RULING: The motion of defendant JP Morgan Cha...
..3, plaintiffs hired defendant Patrick Galligan (“Galligan”), a Santa Barbara attorney, to represent them in a wrongful foreclosure action entitled Ness Carroll, et al. v. Quality Loan Service Corporation, et al., Santa Barbara Superior Court Case No. 1369839. On July 9, 2014, the parties to Case No. 1369839 entered into a Stipulated Settlement and Judgment that called for Galligan to pay $800,000...
OLIVIA ESPINOZA VS EDWARD CARLOS GONZALEZ III ET AL
SUBJECT: Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens Moving Party: Defendant/Cross-Complainant Om Sai Ganesh, LLC Resp. Party: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Olivia Espinoza Defendant/Cross-Complainant Om Sai Ganesh, LLC’s motion to expunge lis pendens is DENIED. Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Olivia Espinoza is awarded sanctions in the reduced amount of $3,685. BACKGROUND: Plaintiff Olivia Espinoza (“Espinoza”) fil...
..zalez III (“Gonzalez”) and Maria De Los Angeles Garcia (“Garcia”) conspired with their real estate agent, Dynasty R.E. Inc. (“Dynasty”) and Victoria Valdez (“Valdez”), to fraudulently convince Espinoza to transfer title to her home to Gonzalez and Garcia. (FAC ¶¶ 39-57.) Espinoza further alleges that she thereafter discovered Gonzalez and Garcia were seeking to sell the property. Espinoza record...
Recent Rulings on Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens
Civil - Unlimited (84)
Motion Hearing (Civil) (94)
A. James Robertson Ii (20)
Charlotte W. Woolard (27)
Charles Treat (17)
Colleen Sterne (18)
Geoffrey Glass (21)
Gregory Keosian (12)
Harold E. Kahn (20)
Jill Fannin (13)
Joel R. Wohlfeil (18)
Kevin Denoce (23)
Michael P. Linfield (38)
Robert Moss (13)
Ronald E. Quidachay (115)
Steve K. Austin (30)
Thomas Anderle (23)
Los Angeles County, CA (347)
Orange County, CA (154)
San Francisco County, CA (239)
KESLINKE VS. STROUD
HEARING ON MOTION TO EXPUNGE LIS PENDENS & FOR ATTORNEY FEES FILED BY ALEXANDER P. STROUD * TENTATIVE RULING: * Defendant Stroud’s motion to expunge lis pendens is granted. Last November, the Court granted a similar motion by a similarly situated party to expunge lis pendens. Stroud convincingly argues that the claims now being asserted by plaintiff are virtually identical, and the arguments for expunging the lis pendens are the same as those found valid in November.
ROBERTS VS. FAVORS
HEARING ON MOTION TO EXPUNGE LIS PENDENS FILED BY ROSETTA SHATKIN * TENTATIVE RULING: * Defendant Shatkin moves to expunge a lis pendens that plaintiff filed against her property, pointing out that the claims in the complaint are not real estate claims that could support a lis pendens. Plaintiff, in lieu of responding to the motion, has filed a dismissal of Shatkin as a defendant. His papers do not say, however, whether he has done anything to make the lis pendens go away.
Res Judicata The Court previously considered the issue of whether Plaintiff’s claims are barred by res judicata in the context of Make It Nice’s motion to expunge an improperly recorded lis pendens. The Court comes to the same conclusion it did in its July 12, 2019, minute order; Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel and the rule against claim-splitting.
ZIPPRICH V. CASE
There is no proof they were actually recorded, and there is no evidence before the court that the lis pendens have been expunged, as the motion requests. On July 6, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a supplemental brief in support of the motion to expunge. They gave a detailed history of the matter, and indicated that the Orange County Recorder has not, and will not, record the Notices of Withdrawal of the lis pendens.
AKZAM V. WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, ET AL.
Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens TENTATIVE RULING Defendant’s unopposed motion to expunge lis pendens is granted. “[O]n a motion to expunge lis pendens after judgment against the claimant and while an appeal is pending, the trial court must grant the motion unless it finds it more likely than not that the appellate court will reverse the judgment.” (Amalgamated Bank v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1003, 1015.)
CLODA JONES VS NAOMI CAMPBELL, ET AL.
.: 19STCV24145 Hearing Date: July 8, 2020 [TENTATIVE] RULING RE: DefendantS NAOMI CAMPBELL AND RONALD CAMPBELL’S Motion for reconsideration of ruling on motion to Expunge Lis Pendens defendants’ attorney susan geffen’s motions to be relieved as counsel Defendants Naomi Campbell and Ronald Campbell’s Motion for Reconsideration of Ruling on Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens is MOOT. Attorney Susan Geffen’s Motions to Be Relieved as Counsel for Defendants Naomi Campbell aka Naomi R. Miller, N.R.
Defendants Mohammad reza Atigehchi and R&M Holding, LLC’s Motion to Expounge Lis Pendens is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are to pay the moving party $1,575 in sanctions. MOTION TO EXPUNGE LIS PENDENS “‘A lis pendens is a recorded document giving constructive notice that an action has been filed affecting title to or right to possession of the real property described in the notice.’ [Citation.] A lis pendens may be filed by any party in an action who asserts a ‘real property claim.’ [Citation.]
If a party abuses the use of a lis pendens, then a court may expunge the lis pendens. (Kirkeby v. Sup. Ct. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 642, 651.)
Yet the time since the court last ruled on Plaintiffs’ lis pendens notice has not yielded any new facts or evidence favorable to Plaintiff, so the court discerns no advantage to be gained by allowing more time than that already afforded to Plaintiffs. Defendants’ Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens Notice is therefore GRANTED.
On April 11, 2017, plaintiff filed a Notice of Pendency of Action (Lis Pendens), which was recorded on April 10, 2017. On April 13, 2018, the court heard a motion brought by defendant Mokhtari to require an undertaking of plaintiff to maintain the lis pendens. The motion was granted, and the court ordered plaintiff to post an undertaking, setting the bond “at a sum in the amount of $12,500, for carrying costs plus $32,000 for attorneys’ fees, for a total of $44,500.” The bond was posted.
Discussion MOTION TO EXPUNGE LIS PENDENS “‘A lis pendens is a recorded document giving constructive notice that an action has been filed affecting title to or right to possession of the real property described in the notice.’ [Citation.] A lis pendens may be filed by any party in an action who asserts a ‘real property claim.’ [Citation.]
Legal Standard A lis pendens is a recorded document giving constructive notice that an action has been filed affecting title or right to possession of the real property described in the notice. (La Jolla Group II v. Bruce (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 461, 473.) At any time after a lis pendens has been recorded, a property owner may bring a motion to expunge an improperly recorded lis pendens. (CCP § 405.30.) One statutory basis for expunging a lis pendens is the posting of an undertaking.
On February 11, 2020, Sunset Car Wash, GP (“Sunset GP”) filed the instant Motion for Leave to Intervene and Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens. On March 5, 2020, General filed an Opposition to the instant Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens. General has not filed an Opposition to the Motion for Leave to Intervene. On March 11, 2020, Sunset GP filed a Reply to the Opposition to the Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens and a Notice of Non-Opposition to the Motion for Leave to Intervene.
The Court continues the June 24, 2020 hearing on Plaintiff's Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens to September 23, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. pending appointment of a Successor-in-Interest.
A real property owner who is successful in having a lis pendens expunged has a statutory right to attorney’s fees expended in bringing the motion to expunge.
The court having read and considered each parties’ motion to enforce the parties’ February 7, 2020 Settlement Agreement and Defendants’ motion to expunge Lis pendens regarding the real property located at 1155 Sweetbriar (“the property”)Manteca, California rules as follows: Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement regarding their individual claimed interest in “the property” filed herein on May 28, 2020 is granted on the following conditions: 1.
BENSON III VS. MELENUDO
HEARING ON MOTION TO EXPUNGE LIS PENDENS FILED BY JEFFREY ROSE MELENUDO * TENTATIVE RULING: * Off calendar per stipulation of counsel.
LOVE BUILDERS LLC VS HARRIS DEVELOPMENT LLC
The Motion to expunge Lis Pendens is GRANTED. 3591 Tyco LLC has requested attorney fees pursuant to CCP 405.38, the Court finds that the prevailing party is entitled to attorney fees and costs, however, the requested attorney fees and costs are excessive, the Court GRANTS attorney fees and costs in the amount of $5000.00.
BARBARA EPIS VS. SCOTT C, JOLLEY
Attorney Fee Order On June 13, 2014 the trial court granted Jolley’s motion to expunge the lis pendens Plaintiff had recorded on the Geldert property and awarded Jolley $6,658 in attorney’s fees pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 405.38. An order awarding fees upon the grant of a motion to expunge the lis pendens is not appealable and may only be reviewed by a writ of mandate within the time limits imposed by Code Civ. Proc. § 405.39. (Shah v.
BARBARA EPIS VS. SCOTT C. JOLLEY
Attorney Fee Order On June 13, 2014 the trial court granted Jolley’s motion to expunge the lis pendens Plaintiff had recorded on the Geldett property and awarded Jolley $6,658 in attomey’s fees pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 405.38, An order awarding fees upon the grant of a motion to expunge the lis pendens is not appealable and may only be reviewed by a writ of mandate within the time limits imposed by Code Civ. Proc. § 405.39, (Shah v.
Judge STEPHEN Pi FRECCERO
Defendants Boo Kon Ki, and Young Sook Kim’s Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens is GRANTED. Plaintiffs and their counsel are to pay $3,847.95 in fees and costs to Defendants. MOTION TO EXPUNGE LIS PENDENS “‘A lis pendens is a recorded document giving constructive notice that an action has been filed affecting title to or right to possession of the real property described in the notice.’ [Citation.] A lis pendens may be filed by any party in an action who asserts a ‘real property claim.’ [Citation.]
ABRAHAMS VS. HAMPTON
After filing the FAC, plaintiff recorded a lis pendens on each property. (Motion, 1:26-27.) TRA Lending, now brings a motion to expunge the lis pendens on 2672 Appian Way and 1500 Broadway. These two properties are in different phases of the foreclosure process. Having recorded a notice of default on 1500 Broadway, TRA Lending, LLC, held a foreclosure sale on December 5, 2019, at which it took title to the property. (Askew Declaration, ¶5.)
DEBORAH DAVIS VS MARCIA GOLAN
A lis pendens, on the other hand, is a recorded instrument that gives constructive notice of a pending lawsuit that affects title to real property. (See Gale v. Superior Court (2004) 122 Cal.4th 1388, 1395.) A “real property claim” is a cause of action that would, if meritorious, affect the title or the right to possession to specific property or the use of an easement other than an easement acquired by statute by a regulated public utility. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 405.20.)
However, the Court finds that the hours expended in relation to the motion to expunge the first lis pendens is excessive especially in light of the experience of Counsel and in light of the simple nature of the motion as Plaintiff had failed to provide the required statutory notice for the lis pendens. (See Order Re: Defendant’s Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens, 8/12/19).
WILLIE CARR VS LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING LLC, ET AL.
Expunge Lis Pendens Defendant Lakeview Loan Servicing LLC moves to expunge Plaintiff’s lis pendens filed on 7/12/19. When a motion to expunge lis pendens is filed, the burden is on the opposing party to show that the complaint contains allegations of a real-property claim, and to evidence the probable validity of the claim based on a preponderance of evidence. (CCP §§405.32m 405.31; Kirkeby v. Sup. Ct. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 642, 648.)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 53 next last »