On 05/23/2011 HUSNA MOHAMMED filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against MOHSIN MOHAMMEND. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MEL RED RECANA, KEVIN C. BRAZILE and MATTHEW ST. GEORGE. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.
Disposed - Judgment Entered
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
MEL RED RECANA
KEVIN C. BRAZILE
MATTHEW ST. GEORGE
DOES 1 TO 20
KARP DAVID I.
SHAHED HASA FOR MOHAMMED AHSAN
VITHLANI DILIP ESQ.
MARTIN STEPHEN M. ESQ.
6/9/2011: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -
8/22/2011: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES OF PLAINTIFF HUSNA MOI LAMMED TO DEFENDANT MOHSIN MOHAMMED, SET ONE WITHOUT OBJECTIONS AND FOR SANCTIONS
8/22/2011: DECLARATION OF DILIP VITHLANI AND EXHIBITS TN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND TO HAVE REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION DEEMED ADMITTED AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
10/19/2011: REPLY OF PLAINTIFF ON MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES OF PLAINTIFF HUSNA MOHAMMED TO DEFENDANT MOHSIN MOHAMMED, SET ONE WITHOUT OBJECTIONS AND FOR SANCTIONS
10/19/2011: REPLY OF PLAINTIFF ON MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES OF PLAINTIFF HUSNA MOHAMMED TO DEFENDANT MOHSIN MOHAMMED, SET ONE WITHOUT OBJECTIONS AND FOR SANCTIONS
10/31/2011: NOTICE OF RULING ON PLAINTIFFS DISCOVERY MOTIONS
11/10/2011: DEFENDANT, MOHSIN MOHAMMEDS SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS FORM I NTERROGATORI ES
12/15/2011: PLAINTIFF?S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS? OPPOSETION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR [N THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY A DJIJDICATION OF THE FL RST AND SECOND CAUSES OF ACTION; DECLARATIONS OF DILIP VITHLANI
4/2/2012: STATEMENT OF AGREEMENT OR NONAGREEMENT -
5/31/2012: NOTICE TO APPEAR AT TRIAL
7/5/2012: TENTATIVE DECISION
10/4/2012: PLAINTIFF?S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS? OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ATTORNEY?S FEES
8/25/2014: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS
3/2/2015: NOTICE OF RELATED CASES RULES OF COURT RULE 3.300
DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Mohsin Mohammed (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 34; Hearing on Motion - Other (Motion to amend judgment to reflect correct amount of money owed by Defendants) - Held - Motion DeniedRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to amend judgment to reflect...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketReply (TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT, NUNC PRO TRUNC TO REFLECT CORRECT AMOUNTS OWED BY DEFENDANTS); Filed by Husna Mohammed (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketOpposition (to Request to Amend Judgment); Filed by Mohsin Mohammed (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketMotion to Amend Judgment; Filed by Husna Mohammed (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketAbstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims; Filed by CreditorRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 34; (Motion; Denied) -Read MoreRead Less
DocketMinute OrderRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute order entered: 2017-02-01 00:00:00; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Husna Mohammed (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCERead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Husna Mohammed (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Husna Mohammed (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by Husna Mohammed (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCOMPLAINT FOR PARTITION AND AN ACCOUNTINGRead MoreRead Less
DocketSUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC462131 Hearing Date: January 09, 2020 Dept: 34
SUBJECT: Motion to Amend Judgment, Nunc Pro Trunc to Reflect Correct Amounts Owed by Defendants
Moving Party: Plaintiff Husna Mohammed
Responding Party: Defendants Mohsin Mohammed and Dilbruba Mohammed
Plaintiff’s motion to amend judgment, nunc pro trunc to reflect correct amounts owed by Defendants is DENIED.
Plaintiff asks the Court to amend the judgment “nunc pro trunc.” (See e.g., Captions to Motion and Reply; reply, p. 2:3.) The correct term is “nunc pro tunc.”
Defendants refer to various exhibits purportedly attached to their opposition. There are no exhibits attached to the opposition as filed with the Court.
Plaintiff Husna Mohammed commenced this action on May 23, 2011 against Defendants Mohsin Mohammed and Dilbruba Mohammed for partition and accounting. Plaintiff alleged that she and defendants were tenants in common for the subject property. Plaintiff sought a partition of sale of the property and an accounting of all rents collected and the distribution of such rents. On June 21, 2012, Plaintiff dismissed the second cause of action for accounting.
The action proceeded to a court trial on June 21, 2012. The Court issued a statement of decision on August 27, 2012, finding that the evidence presented at trial supported the remedy of partition of the property by sale. The statement of decision stated that allowing Plaintiff to buy out Defendants’ share of the appraised value of the property was the proper remedy. The Court ordered the sale of Defendants’ share of the property to Plaintiff at $125,000.00 (25% of the appraised value), and Defendants were to reimburse Plaintiff for the portion of taxes paid and insurance paid by Plaintiff in the total amount of $4,471.00. The Court ordered Defendants to execute a grant deed in favor of Plaintiff upon payment of Plaintiff to Defendants. The parties were ordered to accomplish the transfer of interests within 60 days after the Court issued its statement of decision.
Judgment was entered on September 12, 2012 pursuant to the statement of decision.
Defendants thereafter filed a notice of appeal. A remittitur was filed on July 28, 2014, with the appellate court vacating the judgment with directions. The appellate court found that the Court had properly determined that Mohsin owed a 25% interest in the property and ordered by sale, but the judgment could not be affirmed because the judgment appeared to adjudicate the putative interest of Ahsan Mohammad (“Ahsan”), the parties’ father, who is not and has never been a party to this action. The appellate court therefore vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings, leaving it to the Court and the parties to determine whether to amend the judgment to remove any appearance that it adjudicates Ahsan’s interest or to join Ahsan as a defendant.
On July 31, 2014, after judgment was vacated by the appellate court, Mohsin quit claimed his 25% interest in the property to Ahsan.
On September 15, 2014, the Court entered judgment pursuant to the remittitur. The September 15, 2014 judgment once again ordered Mohsin’s 25% share to be sold to Husna for $125,000.00, as well as other reimbursements and fees.
On October 22, 2014, Ahsan filed an action – BC561522 – against Husna for quiet title, declaratory relief, and injunction. Ahsan’s action pertained to the subject property. On May 21, 2015, the Court found that the instant action and BC561522 are related. On December 3, 2015, the parties to BC561522 entered a settlement orally before the Court. The settlement included the following terms:
1. Ahsan is found to be the 25% owner of the subject property pursuant to the grant deed in his favor executed by Mohsin and recorded on July 31, 2014.
2. The July 31, 2014 grant deed transfers Mohsin’s rights and obligations to Ahsan.
3. The deed recorded on October 9, 2012, purported to grant a 25% interest from Ahsan to Mohsin is cancelled.
On December 6, 2016, the Court granted Ahsan’s motion to enter judgment pursuant to these settlement terms.
On February 1, 2017, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to have the Clerk of the Court execute a deed on behalf of Moshin and to allow Plaintiff to deposit funds with the Court. The Court denied this motion because Moshin no longer owned an interest in the subject property. The Court stated that pursuant to the settlement and judgment in BC561522, Ahsan is now the owner of the subject 25% interest and Ahsan is not a party to the judgment in this action.
On December 9, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to amend the judgment, nunc pro tunc, to reflect correct amounts owed by Defendants.
Plaintiff brings this motion because she “has attempted to collect on the Judgment but her efforts have been stymied because the Judgment does not reflect the actual amount of money that is owed by Defendants.” (Motion, p. 5:5-7 [citing Vithlani Decl., ¶ 11].) Plaintiff asserts that an “amendment of the judgment does not change the judgment entered by this court.” (Id. at p. 5:17.) Plaintiff states that she “is merely seeking to assign numerical values to the amount of money owed by the defendants, so Plaintiff can recover her rightfully earned fees and costs.” (Id. at p. 5:18-21.)
In opposition, “Defendants contend that the request to ‘correct’ the judgment is in fact a motion to modify a judgment in that it seeks to make the payment of the legal fees and discovery sanctions that were supposed to be deducted from the buy out amount on the subject property into a new judgment that would allow the Plaintiff to enforce these payments by writ without having ever paid the buy out amount, which is a condition precedent.” (Opp., pp. 5:27-6:6.) Defendants further maintain “that there is no basis for ‘correcting’ this judgment as the obligations created by the judgment in this matter have been assumed by Mohammed Ahsan, her father.” (Id. at p. 6:7-10.) Instead, Defendants assert that “Plaintiff’s proper course of action would be to seek to enforce the terms of the judgment against her father and her brother, Ha[sim] Mohammed, who is now on title to the property.” (Id. at p. 6:10-13.) Defendants explain that “on August 18, 2017, Mohammed Ahsan granted his 25% interest to his son, Hasim Mohammed, who is the brother of the Plaintiff” and “Ahsan retained a life estate as set forth in a true and correct copy of that Grant Deed attached hereto as Exhibit ‘D.’” (Id. at p. 6:14-17.)
Defendants argue that “as of this date the Plaintiff has yet to have offered Defendant Mohsin Mohammed or any of the other subsequent title holders the $125,000.00 less the fees and sanctions that is due under the terms of the judgment, . . . thus her request should fail for lack of satisfying a condition precedent.” (Id. at p. 7:3-7.) Further, Defendants maintain that “what the Plaintiff appears to request is that the fee and discovery sanction orders be separated from the condition that the Plaintiff deduct those sums from the buy out amount determined by the Court.” (Id. at p. 8:25-28.) Defendants argue “that is not a ‘correction’ but is in fact a request to modify the judgment and change the terms of the judgment in a drastic manner.” (Id. at pp. 8:28-9:2.)
In reply, Plaintiff argues that “all that Plaintiff is seeking is to clarify the actual amounts owed by the Defendants so that the Judgment issued by this court on September 14, 2014 can be enforced.” (Reply, p. 4:20-22.)
Plaintiff brings this motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(5) and (a)(8), which provides:
“(a) Every court shall have the power to do all of the following:
. . .
(5) To control in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its ministerial officers, and of all other persons in any manner connected with a judicial proceeding before it, in every matter pertaining thereto.
. . .
(8) To amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conform to law and justice. . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., §128, subd. (a)(5), (8).)
Code of Civil Procedure section 473 provides:
“The court may, upon motion of the injured party, or its own motion, correct clerical mistakes in its judgment or orders as entered, so as to conform to the judgment or order directed, and may, on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (d).)
“The trial court has the inherent power to correct its record so that it shall conform to the actual facts and speak the truth. [Citation]” (Hand v. Carlson (1934) 138 Cal. App. 202, 210.) “[A]s to clerical errors, when the error is apparent from the face of the record, no time limit exists as far as the right to make the correction is concerned.” (In re Goldberg's Estate (1938) 10 Cal.2d 709, 717.)
The September 15, 2014 judgment provides:
· “[T]he court finds in favor of Plaintiff Husna Mohammed on the complaint and against Defendants Mohsin Mohammed and Dilruba Mohammed.” (09/15/14 Judgment, p. 2:1-3.)
· “Plaintiff is entitled to a partition and the Court ORDERS partition of the Property . . . by sale by ORDERING Defendants’ 25% share to sold Plaintiff for $125,000.00, being 25% of the appraised value of $500,000.00.” (Id. at p. 2:4-9.)
· “[T]he previously ordered discovery sanctions against Defendants in the amount of $1,990.00 are to be deducted from Defendants’ share of the proceeds and paid to Plaintiff’s counsel of record.” (Id. at p. 2:10-12.)
· “Plaintiff is to be credited, pro-rata, for property tax and insurance payments made by Plaintiff from 2008 through 2011 date of Judgment (as detailed in the Statement of Decision), in the amount of $4,471.50.” (Id. at p. 2:13-15.)
· “Defendants are to bear $11,121.40 of the total fees and costs incurred by Plaintiff in connection with the underlying action for partition.” (Id. at p. 2:15-17.)
· “[U]pon tender of Plaintiff to Defendants the sum of $____ (calculated as follows: $125,000.00 less $1,990.00 as discovery sanctions in favor of counsel for Plaintiff, less $4,471.50 as contributions by Defendants to Plaintiff towards property taxes and insurance, less $11,121.40, 75% payable by Plaintiff and 25% payable by defendants, less $______ costs and fees on appeal as approved by the Court upon filing of a noticed motion by Plaintiff following the issuance of the remittitur), Defendants are to execute a Grant Deed in favor of Plaintiff transferring their 25% interest to the Plaintiff. Such transfer shall dissolve the tenancy in common.” (Id. at p. 2:18-25.)
· “Parties are ORDERED to cooperate to accomplish the transfer of interests from Defendants to Plaintiff within 15 days of entry of the Amended Judgment, including access to any part of the property for the purpose of an appraisal if one is necessary.” (Id. at p. 3:1-3.)
The Court finds that there are no errors apparent from the face of the record, nor does the text of the judgment need to be clarified in any manner.
The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to amend judgment, nunc pro tunc to reflect correct amounts owed by Defendants.