Case Number: BC661496 Hearing Date: January 12, 2018 Dept: 31

Plaintiffs’ Request for Entry of Default Judgment against Defendant Javier G. Andujo is DENIED.

The default judgment package complies with the procedural requirements of California Rules of Court Rule 3.1800 and default was properly entered on August 8, 2017.

However, the proposed judgment improperly seeks to assign all costs of repair and all attorneys’ fees to Defendant Javier Andujo. These costs are to be shared equally by the parties in proportion to their interests. (Finney v. Gomez (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 527, 548; CCP § 874.040.)

Moreover, the Complaint does not assert the value of the repairs sought from Defendant in this action. Therefore, entry of the judgment sought would be improper. The circumstances of the present case are identical to those presented in Finney, supra. The court specifically held that “Plaintiffs seeking an equitable partition and accounting have two reasonable options. They can either (1) include an estimate of the amount of money due, and receive a default judgment limited to such an amount or (2) similar to the procedure outlined for personal injury suits, serve the defendant with a precise statement of damages at a reasonable time before the default is entered. Because Finney offered proof of the amount due at the default hearing, it would not have been unfair to require him to specify a precise amount prior to the default.” (Finney, supra at 543-44.) Plaintiffs must comply with the notice requirements imposed by Finney.

Finally, because title to real property is involved, the court shall, once Plaintiff has addressed the notice issue, hold an evidentiary hearing to establish Plaintiffs’ title. (Reinhart v. Lugo (1888) 75 Cal. 639, 641 (“[I]n no event is the trial court to render a judgment in partition, save upon the proof made before it as to the respective rights of the parties, upon which alone it must base its findings, irrespective of any admissions made by default, or failure to answer, or denials of the allegations in the pleadings.”). See also Yeung v. Soos (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 576, 582 (requiring evidentiary hearing to prove title in a quiet title action).)
The matter is continued to February 15, 2018, at 8:30 a.m. Plaintiffs are ordered to lodge a revised prove-up package and proposed judgment consistent with this order no later than February 5, 2018.