MP: Plaintiffs, Aveline Villenas Adarme and Nathalene Parero
RP: Defendant, Rancho Horizon LLC

RELIEF REQUESTED:
Writ of Possession for Plaintiffs’ personal property.

DISCUSSION:
This case arises from the Plaintiff’s claim that their property was wrongfully sold in a foreclosure proceeding to Defendant, Rancho Horizon, LLC. Further, the Plaintiff claims that the Defendant, Melrose 6 Homeowners Association, caused damages because it allowed the locks to be changed at the Plaintiffs’ property and for the Plaintiffs’ property to be removed. Finally, the Plaintiffs claim that the Defendant, Rancho Horizon, LLC, converted the Plaintiffs property when they entered the house and removed the Plaintiff’s personal property.
At this hearing, the Plaintiff, Aveline Adarme, requests a writ of possession in order to obtain possession of her personal property from the Defendant, Rancho Horizon, LLC. The writ of possession is a statutory remedy that permits a plaintiff to obtain possession of tangible personal property prior to trial when the defendant has wrongful possession of the property. CCP section 512.060 permits the Court to issue a writ of possession when the Court finds the following:

1) The plaintiff has established the probable validity of the plaintiff’s claim to possession of the property.
2) The undertaking requirements of Section 515.010 are satisfied.

The Plaintiff, Aveline Adarme, provides facts in her own declaration to support the application. The Plaintiff’s claim of possession arises from the allegation that the Defendant, Rancho Horizon, LLC, wrongfully took possession of the Plaintiff’s personal property. Ms. Adarme states that on August 14, 2013, her real property was sold to Defendant, Rancho Horizon, LLC. Ms. Adarme states in paragraph 5 that Rancho Horizon LLC knew that she was in possession of the real property and that she had not abandoned or vacated the property because she notified Rancho Horizon, LLC, after the sale that she was in possession of the property.
Ms. Adarme states in paragraphs 6 and 8 that Rancho Horizon, LLC, entered her home on August 30, 2013 and September 3, 2013, changed the locks, and removed her personal property. Ms. Adarme lists the items of personal property that were taken in paragraphs 6 and 8.
Ms. Adarme states in paragraph 10 that she never consented to the Defendant entering her home to remove her property. In paragraph 11, Ms. Adarme states that she never received notice that Rancho Horizon LLC would enter her home and take her property.
In paragraph 12, Ms. Adarme states that the Defendant has not returned her property, despite her demanded for the return of her property.

This evidence establishes the probable validity of the Plaintiff’s claim to possession of the personal property because it shows that the Plaintiff has the right to take possession of the property and that the Defendant has wrongful possession of the property because the Defendant took it without permission and has refused to return the property. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has met its burden of showing that the probable validity of Plaintiff’s claim to possession.

The Defendant, Rancho Horizon, LLC, did not file any opposition papers to dispute the Plaintiff’s facts.

Under CCP section 512.010(b)(4), the Plaintiff must provide evidence of the location of the property. Further, if the property is within a private place which may have to be entered to take possession, section (b)(4) requires there to be a showing that there is probable cause to believe that the property is located there.
The Plaintiff offers no facts regarding the location of the property. The Plaintiff states that the Defendant has knowledge of the location. However, CCP section 512.010(b)(4) imposes the burden of proof on the Plaintiff to provide evidence of the location of the property in order to obtain a writ of possession. This is a provisional remedy that can be obtained through a noticed motion and the Plaintiff must comply with its statutory requirements to obtain the remedy.
The Court may not issue a writ of possession without an address. Accordingly, the Court will make a determination at the hearing to determine whether to continue the hearing so that the Plaintiff may obtain the address where her property is located.

The following applies if the Plaintiff provides evidence of the address where the personal property is located.

CCP section 512.060 requires that an undertaking be filed before a writ of possession may be issued. CCP section 515.010 states that the undertaking shall be set at an amount not less than twice the value of the defendant’s interest in the property. In addition, CCP section 515.010 defines the value of the defendant’s interest in the property as the market value of the property less the amount due and owing on any conditional sales contract or security agreement and all liens and encumbrances on the property, and any other factors necessary to determine the defendant’s interest in the property. When a defendant does not have any interest in the property, CCP section 515.010(b) permits the Court to waive the requirement of the plaintiff’s undertaking and set an undertaking for the defendant to keep possession or regain possession.
Ms. Adarme provides facts in her declaration to show that the Defendant has no interest in the personal property. Accordingly, under CCP section 515.010(b), the Court will waive the requirement for the Plaintiff to file an undertaking because the Defendant does not have any interest in the property.

In addition, if the Defendant seeks to retain possession of the property, CCP section 515.010(b) permits the Defendant to file an undertaking. Ms. Adarme provides facts in paragraphs 6 and 8 to demonstrate that the property has a value of $483,100; however, Ms. Adarme offers no facts to demonstrate the manner by which she calculated this amount. Ms. Adarme has not offered any facts demonstrating that she obtained an appraisal of the personal property or any other standard method by which the value of property is evaluated. Accordingly, the Court will set the Defendant’s undertaking to retain the personal property at a standard amount of $10,000.

RULING:
Determine whether to continue the hearing because the Plaintiff has not offered any evidence regarding the address at which the personal property is located.

If the Plaintiff provides evidence regarding the address:
Grant Plaintiff’s application and issue a writ of possession for the personal property described in her declaration.
Waive requirement for Plaintiff to file an undertaking.
Set Defendant’s undertaking to retain possession at $10,000.