2017-00221399-CU-FR

Lita Bellamy vs. Howard Vaughn

Nature of Proceeding: Writ of Possession

Filed By: Vaughn, Howard

Defendant Howard Vaughn’s Application for Writ of Possession is denied.

Cross-complainant Howard Vaughn contends that on January 12, 2016, Lita Bellamy, with whom he has been in a relationship with for over 8 years, gave him the subject 2015 Ford Explorer. He states that the Ford Explorer has a current market value of $21,889. On August 27, 2017, Lita Bellamy removed the battery on the Explorer, making it inoperable, and also locked him out of his apartment. He later reported the car stolen to his insurance company when the tow truck driver could not locate the inoperable vehicle.

Lita Bellamy’s Complaint alleges that she and defendant went to a Ford dealership on January 12, 2016 to purchase a vehicle to operate an “UBER” business together. She paid $35,000 towards the $40,000 price of the vehicle and defendant traded in his paid for vehicle for $5,000 to make the $40,000 purchase price of the Ford Explorer. She alleges that because defendant never operated the UBER business as agreed, she decided to remove the vehicle to a safe location on August 27, 2017. Vaughn states the vehicle is located at Life Storage Bayou, 3800 Bayou Way, Sacramento 95835. Mr. Vaughn states that Ms. Bellamy took the vehicle more than 18 months after he took possession of it because he decided to cut off the relationship, not because he did not agree to operate the UBER business. Vaughn says he learned the vehicle was at the storage facility when he, as the registered owner, received a Notice of Lien sale. The lien noticed from the DMV stated that $600 in current charges were due for storage.

The Court may issue a writ of possession only if it determines, after reviewing all of the evidence submitted by each side, that Vaughn’s claim to the right to possess the vehicle is probably valid [CCP 512.040(b)], and that the undertaking requirements of CCP 515.010 are satisfied. Vaughn must show he has the right to immediate possession of tangible personal property; and the property is being wrongfully withheld by the other party. CCP 512.010; Englert v. IVAC Corp. (1979) 92 Cal.App. 3d 178, 184.

In this case, the facts are highly disputed and the Court cannot find that Vaughn’s version of the events is more likely than Bellamy’s version. The Court can only issue

a writ of possession if it finds that the vehicle was a “gift” with no strings attached, i.e the requirement to drive the car for UBER and split the proceeds with Bellamy. If, in fact, the car was a gift and it was taken in August of 2017, why didn’t Vaughn take steps before now to take possession of the vehicle? Alternatively, if the car was purchased exclusively for an UBER business in January 2016, but the business never got started, why did Bellamy wait more than 20 months to take possession of the vehicle? Therefore, the writ of possession is denied at this time because the Court does not find on the facts before it that it is more probable than not that defendant will ultimately obtain a judgment for possession of the vehicle.

Even were the court to grant the writ of possession, the required bond would be twice the cross-defendant’s interest in the property. CCP 512.060, 515.010(a). Cross-defendant Bellamy paid $35,000 towards the price of the vehicle. Thus, the required bond would be $70,000, which cross-complainant/ defendant would be required to pay before he could obtain the vehicle. Based on Vaughn’s statements regarding his financial condition, it is likely the posting of the bond would not be feasible. The Court need not address this concern at this time, however, and does not reach it.

If requested by the parties, the Court will schedule an early Settlement Conference in Dept. 59, to allow an early neutral evaluation and possible early resolution. The court perceives this will be the most cost effective manner to reach a solution without further expense and depreciation of the vehicle.