Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

LUCKY 777, INC. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, E061679. (2014)

Court: Court of Appeals of California Number: incaco20141023078 Visitors: 18
Filed: Oct. 23, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 23, 2014
Summary: NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. OPINION RICHLI, J. In this matter we have reviewed the petition and the opposition filed by real party in interest. We have determined that resolution of t
More

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

OPINION

RICHLI, J.

In this matter we have reviewed the petition and the opposition filed by real party in interest. We have determined that resolution of the matter involves the application of settled principles of law, and that issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance is therefore appropriate. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178.)

DISCUSSION

First, the only cause of action which could conceivably support real party in interest's notice of lis pendens is that alleging a "fraudulent conveyance" of the subject real property. (See Kirkeby v. Superior Court (2004) 33 Cal.4th 642.) But petitioners' motion clearly referenced both sections 405.31 and 405.32 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the latter places the burden on the plaintiff to establish the "probable validity" of any real property claim. Thus, even if the pleading were sufficient to state a cause of action for fraudulent conveyance, real party in interest's failure to factually support the claim is fatal.

Real party in interest did nothing more than speculate that because defendants Grewal and Gill are allegedly related, any real property held by Gill must have been held for Grewal's benefit, and any transfer by Gill must have been done to hinder Grewal's creditors. Real party in interest presented no evidence whatsoever to support any of these conjectures.

The 1992 amendments to the lis pendens law, which placed the burden on the plaintiff to establish a viable claim, were designed to curb abuses and prevent plaintiffs from tying up real property as a strategic maneuver. (See Hunting World, Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 67.) Accordingly, as real party in interest failed to carry its burden, the notice of lis pendens must be expunged.

DISPOSITION

Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing the Superior Court of Riverside County to vacate its order denying petitioners' motion to expunge, and to enter a new order granting said motion.

Petitioners are directed to prepare and have the peremptory writ of mandate issued, copies served, and the original filed with the clerk of this court, together with proof of service on all parties. Petitioners to recover their costs.

McKinster, Acting P.J. and King, J., concurs.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer