On 07/02/2019 JASMINE A LOMAX filed an Other lawsuit against DASHIELL LAWRENCE. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JAMES E. BLANCARTE. The case status is Disposed - Other Disposed.
Disposed - Other Disposed
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
JAMES E. BLANCARTE
LOMAX JASMINE A
12/17/2019: Order (name extension) - Order Releasing Lien
11/5/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Petition Petition to Release Property - Mechanic's...)
10/10/2019: Proof of Mailing (Substituted Service) - Proof of Mailing (Substituted Service)
7/2/2019: Petition to Release Property - Mechanic's Lien - Petition to Release Property - Mechanic's Lien
7/2/2019: Notice of Hearing on Petition - Notice of Hearing on Petition
7/2/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet
7/2/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order
7/2/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case
DocketOrder Releasing Lien; Signed and Filed by: Jasmine A Lomax (Petitioner); As to: Dashiell Lawrence (Respondent)Read MoreRead Less
DocketHearing on Petition Petition to Release Property - Mechanic's Lien scheduled for 11/05/2019 at 10:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 updated: Result Date to 11/05/2019; Result Type to HeldRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Petition Petition to Release Property - Mechanic's...)Read MoreRead Less
DocketProof of Mailing (Substituted Service); Filed by: Jasmine A Lomax (Petitioner); As to: Dashiell Lawrence (Respondent); Mailing Date: 10/01/2019; Service Cost: 9.65; Cost Waived: NoRead MoreRead Less
DocketHearing on Petition Petition to Release Property - Mechanic's Lien scheduled for 11/05/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94Read MoreRead Less
DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 94 Stanley Mosk CourthouseRead MoreRead Less
DocketPetition to Release Property - Mechanic's Lien; Filed by: Jasmine A Lomax (Petitioner); As to: Dashiell Lawrence (Respondent)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Jasmine A Lomax (Petitioner); As to: Dashiell Lawrence (Respondent)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Hearing on Petition; Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: 19STCP02815 Hearing Date: November 05, 2019 Dept: 94
PETITION FOR RELEASE OF PROPERTY FROM MECHANIC’S LIEN
(Civ. Code § 8480 et seq.)
Petitioner Jasmine A. Lomax’s Petition to Release Property from Lien and Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED IN PART.
On July 2, 2019, Petitioner Jasmine A. Lomax (“Petitioner”) filed this Petition to Release Property from Lien (the “Petition”), seeking to release a mechanic’s lien recorded by her sibling, Respondent Dashiell Lawrence (“Respondent”), on real property known as 1483 West 46th St., Los Angeles, CA 90062 (the “Subject Property”). Petitioner is the owner of the Subject Property. (Pet. ¶ 1.) Respondent recorded a mechanic’s lien against the Subject Property on March 8, 2019 based on a personal loan to Petitioner. (Pet. p. 2.)
II. Legal Standard
“The mechanics’ lien statutes, which are set out in the Civil Code commencing at [(section 8480 et seq.)], are based on article XIV, section of the California Constitution. [Citations.]” (Solit v. Tokai Bank, Ltd. New York Branch (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1441-1442.)
After the mechanic’s lien has been recorded, “[t]he owner of property or the owner of any interest in property subject to a claim of lien may petition the court for an order to release the property from the claim of lien if the claimant has not commenced an action to enforce the lien within the time provided in Section 8460.” (Civ. Code § 8480(a).) “The petitioner has the initial burden of producing evidence on those matters. The petitioner has the burden of proof as to the issue of compliance with the service and date for hearing requirements of this article. The claimant has the burden of proof as to the validity of the lien.” (Id. § 8488(a).)
The Court finds that the Proof of Service, which includes an acknowledgment of receipt signed by Respondent, satisfies the service requirements of Civ. Code § 8486(b). The Court now turns to the merits of the Petition.
Since recording the mechanic’s lien against the Subject Property on March 8, 2019, Respondent has not sought to enforce it as required by CCP § 8460. (Pet. ¶¶ 3, 5.) Petitioner now asks the Court for an order to release the mechanic’s lien.
“An owner of property may not petition the court for a release order under this article unless at least 10 days before filing the petition the owner gives the claimant notice demanding that the claimant execute and record a release of the claim of lien. The notice shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 8100) of Title 1, and shall state the grounds for the demand.” (Civ. Code § 8482, emphasis added.) Here, Petitioner gave notice to Respondent to release the mechanic’s lien on June 3, 2019, (Pet., Exh. 2), but Respondent has not done so.
Moreover, “[a] petition for a release order shall be verified and shall allege all of the following:
(a) The date of recordation of the claim of lien. A certified copy of the claim of lien shall be attached to the petition.
(b) The county in which the claim of lien is recorded.
(c) The book and page or series number of the place in the official records where the claim of lien is recorded.
(d) The legal description of the property subject to the claim of lien.
(e) Whether an extension of credit has been granted under Section 8460, if so to what date, and that the time for commencement of an action to enforce the lien has expired.
(f) That the owner has given the claimant notice under Section 8482 demanding that the claimant execute and record a release of the lien and that the claimant is unable or unwilling to do so or cannot with reasonable diligence be found.
(g) Whether an action to enforce the lien is pending.
(h) Whether the owner of the property or interest in the property has filed for relief in bankruptcy or there is another restraint that prevents the claimant from commencing an action to enforce the lien.”
(Civ. Code § 8484.)
Having reviewed the Petition, the Court finds that Petitioner has properly alleged and verified the requirements of Civ. Code § 8484. (Pet.) Given that Petitioner has satisfied all the statutory requirements, the Court finds that the mechanic’s lien should be released.
C. Attorney Fees
“The prevailing party is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees.” (Civ. Code § 8488(c).) Petitioner asks for attorney fees as the prevailing party under Section 8488(c), but she fails to specify the amount of attorney fees she is seeking and to demonstrate how the requested amount is reasonable. “[I]n the absence of such crucial information as the number of hours worked, billing rates, types of issues dealt with and appearances made on the client’s behalf, the trial court is placed in the position of simply guessing at the actual value of the attorney’s services. That practice is unacceptable and cannot be the basis for an award of fees.” (Martino v. Denevi (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 553, 558-559.) Because Petitioner fails to specify the amount of attorney fees she seeks with supporting evidence, the Court cannot grant any attorney fees.
IV. Conclusion & Order
In light of the foregoing, the Petition is GRANTED IN PART. The mechanic’s lien recorded against the Subject Property by Respondent is ordered to be released. The request for attorney fees is DENIED.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCdept94@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.