2017-00221399-CU-FR

Lita Bellamy vs. Howard Vaughn

Nature of Proceeding: Writ of Attachment

Filed By: Bellamy, Lita

Self-represented plaintiff Lita Bellamy’s Application for Writ of Attachment is unopposed but is denied.

A writ of attachment requires a claim for money based upon a contract, express or implied, that has a fixed or readily ascertainable amount of not less than $500. The plaintiff has the burden of proving the probable validity of the claim (CCP §

481.190 and CCP § 484.090(a) (2)) by admissible evidence, such as an appropriate declaration. CCP § 484.030 Any claim against a natural person may be made under the statute only if the debt arises from defendant’s conduct of a “trade, business, or profession.” CCP § 483.010(c).

In this case, plaintiff has identified no legal basis for her claim that defendant owes her money to form a basis for her writ of attachment. No underlying contract between the parties is alleged, and no facts showing that any contract was entered into with plaintiff in defendant’s capacity of a trade, business, or profession. Instead, Plaintiff claims that she and defendant decided to purchase a vehicle together. Defendant paid $500 towards the vehicle and plaintiff paid $35,000 [although the vehicle was a $40,000 vehicle]. Plaintiff states that the purpose of purchasing the car together was to operate an UBER business. The car was registered in defendant’s name due to an UBER requirement that the driver of the vehicle must be the registered owner.

Plaintiff has not provided any admissible evidence that she has a claim for money from the defendant that arises out of his trade, business or profession. There is no written contract supporting the application. The supporting facts to not meet the requirements for obtaining a writ of attachment. There are strict statutory requirements that must be met to establish a prima facie claim to relief. Strict construction of the statutory scheme prevents any relief unless specifically provided in statute. Pacific Decision Sciences Corp. v Superior Court (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1100, 1106. No agreement is provided. Effectively, plaintiff seeks a writ of possession, in that she wants the vehicle and title transferred to her, upon her payment of $500.