2017-00214446-CU-BC

Anatoly Priymak vs. Aleksandr Verkhovodov

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Enforce Settlement

Filed By: Rahimzadeh, Yasha

The motion of Defendant Aleksandr Verkhovodov (“Verkhovodov”) for enforcement of

the “Stipulation for Settlement” (“Stipulation”) that he entered into with Plaintiff Anatoly Priymak (“Priymak”) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6 is denied without prejudice.

Verkhovodov contends that Priymak has failed to comply with the Stipulation because he has filed to close escrow and pay the purchase price for 2201 Brunton Way, Sacramento, CA, the subject real property, by October 31, 2018. Verkhovodov argues
that the Court should enter judgment “against Plaintiff” requiring him to pay $165,000, pay his prorated share of property taxes, disgorge any rents he collected from

Verkhovodov’s tenants, and pay Verkhovodov’s attorney’s fees and costs for bringing the present motion. In the alternative, Verkhovodov requests that the court dismiss

Priymak’s action against him.

Verkhovodov argues that Priymak has fabricated a cloud or lien on the property to be transferred under the settlement. The claimed cloud on title is made by the property’s prior owner Lyubov Khalus through whom Verkhovodov claims he obtained his title.

Verkhovodov argues that the settlement agreement does not require that Priymak be able to obtain title insurance as to the title Verkhovodov is to transfer to Priymak. (MPA, p.6:24-25.) Verkhovodov argues that Priymak’s refusal to proceed with the escrow and transfer is only a delaying ploy because Priymak has failed to secure financing to complete the transaction.

Priymak’s opposition tells a very different story regarding his efforts to complete the transaction, and the ultimate refusal of First American Title Company to insure title and continue the escrow. Based upon Priymak’s evidence, it appears at a minimum that he has obtained full financing, was ready willing and able to proceed with the transaction, but the title company would not insure the title from Verkhovodov.

Priymak argues that the best and equitable path for the court to take under CCP 664.6 is to deny Verkhovodov’s motion and instead order the $165,000 currently in Mr. Cass’ client trust account to be transferred to the Court’s trust account, or some other account. The money would thereafter stay in the constructive trust until after Lyubov Khalus’ encumbrance regarding the defective April 13, 2010 Deed from Ljubov Khalus to Verkhovodov is removed and title insurance can be obtained as called for in the settlement agreement. Priymak also notes that under the parties’ settlement the accruing rents are all to go to him as of November 1, 2018, and he should be allowed to keep those rents from that date forward because Verkhovodov is the sole reason the escrow has not been able to be closed with any title company.

The parties’ settlement agreement provides “If the title company cannot close escrow by October 31, 2018 due to unforeseen circumstances (such as time to obtain title insurance) then the parties (DEFENDANT and PLAINTIFF) agree to the close of escrow on the first available date after October 31, 2018” and “DEFENDANT is not to accept rent or request rent from any tenant regarding 2201 Brunton Way, Sacramento, CA 95825 for the time frame of November 1, 2018 forward as any rent due after November 1, 2018 is to go 100% to PLAINTIFF.”

Contrary to Verkhovodov’s position, the parties’ agreement did intend that Priymak would receive insurable title from Verkhovodov, and that the escrow performance date could be delayed by the title insurance process. Further, the parties agreed that in the event of a delay in the escrow process, Priymak would be entitled to the accruing rents. Last, Priymak establishes that the failure of the escrow was not based upon his inability to obtain financing.

Thus, Verkhovodov has not established the bases of his motion, or that the Court should enter a judgment against Priymak compelling him to accept uninsurable title from Verkhovodov or to dismiss his action. The motion is denied without prejudice.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.

I