Case Number: SS026368 Hearing Date: December 11, 2018 Dept: M

CASE NAME: Yu Leseberg v. Rolan Feld

CASE NUMBER: SS026368

HEARING DATE: December 11, 2018

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR ORDER FOR SALE OF DWELLING (SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING)

MOVING PARTY: Petitioner Yu Leseberg

OPPOSING PARTY: Judgment Debtor Rolan Feld

On February 15, 2017, judgment was entered in this matter for Petitioner Yu Leseberg, for $1,364,520.00 plus $622,699.51 in attorney’s fees. On March 16, 2018 petitioner applied for an order for sale of dwelling, seeking an order to sell a condominium owned by judgment debtor/respondent. On August 22, 2018 Petitioner’s attorney Thomas Mulally filed a declaration setting forth the amount of the judgment collected up until that date in support of petitioner’s application for writ of execution. On October 16, 2018, a hearing was held on the Petition in Department M of the Los Angeles County Superior Court in Santa Monica. The Court continued the Motion to December 11, 2018 and ordered both parties to address the issue of the appraisal of the subject property to be sold.

Discussion

Pursuant to the Court’s 10/16 minute order, both parties have provided supplemental briefing. Petitioner has provided an appraisal for the correct property this time – 510 S. Hewitt Ave. – estimating the Property’s value at $1,350,000.00. The Court therefore finds that Petitioner has corrected the appraisal defect that the Court previously identified.

Respondent, however, has raised significant questions regarding the accuracy of the amount that petitioner claims is still outstanding on the judgment. The Declaration of Thomas Mulally—which was used to obtain the writ of execution that underlies this petition – states that “to date Petitioner has collected $514,135.81 from Feld.” (Mulally Declaration at ¶5.) Respondent, however, has submitted a sworn declaration indicating that Petitioner has collected at least $600,481.00 from Petitioner via levies conducted by the Sacramento and Los Angeles Sheriff’s Departments. (Patterson Decl. at ¶11.) Additionally, Respondent has provided evidence that Petitioner has retained $67,691.47 in fees under the Yu Transactional Fee agreement without making a 2/3 distribution to Respondent as required in Paragraph 4 of the Judgment. (Patterson Decl. at ¶4.) These elements of Respondent’s declaration are sufficient to raise serious questions as to the accuracy of the amount Petitioner claims is still owed under the Judgment. While these questions remain unresolved, the issuance of an order to sell Respondent’s dwelling would be inappropriate.

Petitioner’s motion is therefore continued for her to file a sworn declaration with all evidentiary documents to show the total amount collected on the judgement and the outstanding balance. The declaration must address the sums specified in Respondent’s Brief that were alleged to have been collected in satisfaction of the judgment. Such declaration is due January ___, 2019, with hearing on this matter continued for potential testimony on January ____, 2019.