This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 12/02/2020 at 11:20:26 (UTC).

MELVYN J. BERNIE, ET AL. VS ELSA RAMIREZ

Case Summary

On 02/14/2014 MELVYN J BERNIE filed a Property - Other Property Fraud lawsuit against ELSA RAMIREZ. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE, MARK A. BORENSTEIN, RAFAEL A. ONGKEKO, EDWARD B. MORETON and LAURA A. SEIGLE. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6477

  • Filing Date:

    02/14/2014

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Property Fraud

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE

MARK A. BORENSTEIN

RAFAEL A. ONGKEKO

EDWARD B. MORETON

LAURA A. SEIGLE

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Petitioners and Not Classified By Court

1928 JEWELRY COMPANY

1928 WATCH COMPANY

BERNIE LAURIE S.

BERNIE MELVYN J.

EMILY A LLC

JEWELM LLC

LAURIE B LLC

MEL BERNIE & COPANY INC.

MEL BERNIE & COMPANY INC.

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 TO 100

RAMIREZ ELSA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

WEINTRAUB TOBIN LAW CORPORATION

GLASER STEVEN ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: ORDER FOR SALE OF DWELLING)

10/21/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: ORDER FOR SALE OF DWELLING)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER)

10/21/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: ORDER FOR SALE OF DWELLING)

8/13/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: ORDER FOR SALE OF DWELLING)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER)

8/13/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER)

Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

6/8/2020: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

COMPLAINT FOR: 1) CONVERSION; ETC

2/14/2014: COMPLAINT FOR: 1) CONVERSION; ETC

JUDGMENT

10/21/2015: JUDGMENT

Order To Show Cause Re: Order For Sale of Dwelling

2/26/2020: Order To Show Cause Re: Order For Sale of Dwelling

Writ of Execution - WRIT OF EXECUTION (LOS ANGELES)

11/7/2019: Writ of Execution - WRIT OF EXECUTION (LOS ANGELES)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: ORDER FOR SALE OF DWELLING)

7/2/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: ORDER FOR SALE OF DWELLING)

Proof of Personal Service

5/28/2019: Proof of Personal Service

Memorandum of Costs After Judgment, Acknowledgment of Credit, and Declaration of Accrued Interest

2/5/2019: Memorandum of Costs After Judgment, Acknowledgment of Credit, and Declaration of Accrued Interest

Proof of Personal Service

12/26/2018: Proof of Personal Service

NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

2/14/2014: NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT (APPLICATION TO ENTER DEFAULT)

4/23/2014: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT (APPLICATION TO ENTER DEFAULT)

PLAINTIFFS' CIVIL DEFAULT PROVE UP HEARING BRIEF

6/5/2015: PLAINTIFFS' CIVIL DEFAULT PROVE UP HEARING BRIEF

Minute Order -

6/9/2015: Minute Order -

PLAINTIFFS' [PROPOSED] STATEMENT OF DECISION AFTER CIVIL DEFAULT PROVE UP

6/19/2015: PLAINTIFFS' [PROPOSED] STATEMENT OF DECISION AFTER CIVIL DEFAULT PROVE UP

82 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/23/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Melvyn J. Bernie (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2020
  • DocketOrder ([Proposed] Order Granting Assignee's Application for Order of Sale of Dwelling); Filed by Melvyn J. Bernie (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 48, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Order for Sale of Dwelling - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2020
  • Docketat 2:00 PM in Department 48, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Nunc Pro Tunc Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Order for Sale of Dwelling)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Nunc Pro Tunc Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/14/2020
  • DocketReply (to Defendant's Opposition to Assignee's Application for Order for Sale of Dwelling and Issuance of Order to Show Cause Why Order for Sale of Dwelling Not be Made); Filed by Melvyn J. Bernie (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2020
  • DocketOpposition (Defendant's Opposition to Assignee's Application For Order For Sale of Dwelling and Order to Show Cause Why Order for Sale of Dwelling Should Not Be Made); Filed by Elsa Ramirez (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/17/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Posting; Filed by Melvyn J. Bernie (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by Melvyn J. Bernie (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
152 More Docket Entries
  • 02/26/2014
  • DocketMinute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2014
  • DocketMinute order entered: 2014-02-26 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2014
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND OF ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/18/2014
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/18/2014
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2014
  • DocketNotice of Related Case; Filed by Melvyn J. Bernie (Plaintiff); Laurie S. Bernie (Plaintiff); Mel Bernie & Company, Inc. (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2014
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Melvyn J. Bernie (Plaintiff); Laurie S. Bernie (Plaintiff); Mel Bernie & Company, Inc. (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2014
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2014
  • DocketNOTICE OF RELATED CASE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2014
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR: 1) CONVERSION; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC536477    Hearing Date: October 21, 2020    Dept: 48

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: SALE OF DWELLING

On February 14, 2014, Plaintiffs Melvyn J. Bernie, individually and as trustee for the Bernie Family Trust dated October 31, 1990; Laurie S. Bernie, individually and as trustee for the Bernie Family Trust dated October 31, 1990; Mel Bernie & Company, Inc. dba 1928 Jewelry Company; Laurie B LLC; Emily A LLC; JEWELM LLC; and 1928 Watch Company (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Elsa Ramirez (“Defendant”). The Court entered a default against Defendant on April 23, 2014. The Court held a default prove-up hearing on June 9, 2015. On October 21, 2015, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant in the amount of $288,191.00, costs in the amount of $1,922.70, and interest at the annual rate of 10% from the date of entry of judgment. The Court issued an abstract of judgment on February 25, 2019.

At some point, Plaintiffs assigned the judgment to Upstream Capital Investments, LLC (“Upstream”). On April 22, 2019, Upstream filed an application for order for sale of the dwelling owned by Defendant and located at 10900 Marklein Avenue, Mission Hills, California 91345 (“Dwelling”). On July 2, 2019, the Court denied the application without prejudice.

A writ of execution issued on November 7, 2019, in the total amount of $406,102.73, plus daily interest of $79.48. On February 26, 2020, Upstream filed this application for order for sale of the Dwelling. At the August 13, 2020 hearing, the Court continued the hearing to October 21, 2020 due to a missing proof of service.

Real property dwellings (defined in Code of Civil procedure section 704.710, subdivision (a)) may not be sold to enforce a money judgment except pursuant to a court order for sale obtained under section 704.740, subdivision (a). (In re Marriage of Schenck (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1474, 1480 (Marriage of Schenck).) Promptly after a real property dwelling has been levied upon, the levying officer must serve notice on the judgment creditor that the levy has been made and that the property will be released from the levy unless the credito r applies to the court for an order of sale. (Code Civ. Proc., § 704.750, subd. (a); see also Marriage of Schenck, supra, 228 Cal.App.3d at p. 1480.) After the creditor files an application for an order of sale, the court sets a time and place for hearing and orders the debtor to show cause why an order for sale should not be made. (Code Civ. Proc., § 704.770, subd. (a); see also Marriage of Schenck, supra, 228 Cal.App.3d at p. 1481.) The hearing must be scheduled not later than forty-five (45) days after the application is filed, unless the time is extended for good cause. (Code Civ. Proc., § 704.770, subd. (a); see also Marriage of Schenck, supra, 228 Cal.App.3d at p. 1481.)

The judgment creditor is required to serve copies of the order to show cause, the application for the order of sale, and the notice of the hearing on the debtors and on occupants of the dwelling at least thirty 30 days before the hearing on the application. (Code Civ. Proc., § 704.770, subd. (b); see also Marriage of Schenck, supra, 228 Cal.App.3d at p. 1479.) These documents must be served on the judgment debtors personally or by mail. (Code Civ. Proc., § 704.770, subd. (b)(1).) The judgment creditor must additionally personally serve a copy of each of the documents on an occupant of the dwelling in question, and if there is no occupant present at the time service is attempted, a copy of each document must be posted in a conspicuous place at the dwelling. (Code Civ. Proc., § 704.770, subd. (b)(2).)

On September 4, 2020, Upstream gave notice to Defendant by mail, and on September 14, 2020, Upstream posted the application documents at the Dwelling.

Pursuant to section 704.780, the Court must order the sale of the swelling, subject to the homestead exemption, unless the Court determines that the sale proceeds would not be likely to satisfy any part of the amount due on the judgment under section 704.800. (Code Civ. Proc., § 704.780, subd. (b).) A homestead is exempt from sale to satisfy a money judgment if it cannot be sold for an amount exceeding the amount of the homestead exemption plus the amount necessary to satisfy all liens and encumbrances on the property senior to and not including the judgment at issue. (Bratcher v. Buckner (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1177, 1186.) The homestead exemption is $75,000 unless the judgment debtor shows entitlement to a greater exemption by a declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 704.730; Tarlesson v Broadway Foreclosure Invs. LLC (2010) Cal.App.4th 931, 939.)

The homestead exemption here is $75,000, and Defendant has not shown entitlement to a greater exemption.

The application includes a declaration attaching various documents including a title report showing the Dwelling owned by Defendant as a single woman, a recorded homeowner’s exemption of $7,000, no disabled veteran’s exemption, and various liens and encumbrances. The declaration identifies the amounts of the liens or encumbrances and the names and addresses of the persons having the liens or encumbrances. (Code Civ. Proc., § 704.760.) Not including the judgment at issue here, there is a deed of trust recorded on May 11, 2005 for $359,000.00, a deed of trust recorded June 17, 2016 for $5,874.04, an abstract of judgment recorded on June 22, 2010 for $2,322.84, and an abstract of judgment recorded on June 26, 2019 for $8,980.13.

In the original application, Upstream contended that the current amounts of the liens and encumbrances senior to Upstead’s are $286,319.73, $5,874.04, and $4,606.88, for a total of $296,800.65. With the $75,000 homestead exemption, the total is $371,800.65 The appraisal attached to the application, dated December 6, 2019, valued the property at $595,000.00.

In her opposition, Defendant states the current balances as of October 21, 2020 on the liens and encumbrances senior to Upstead’s are $280,846.46, $44,200.00, and $4,762.48, there is a Covid loan payment deferral of $14,009.38, and the homestead exemption is $75,000.00, for a total of $418,818,32. Defendant attaches an appraisal of the house showing a value of $615,000.00 as of September 1, 2020.

Whether the fair market value of the property is $595,000.00 or $615,000.00, the sale is likely to produce a bid sufficient to satisfy at least part of the amount due on the judgment. Accordingly, the application for order for sale of the Dwelling is GRANTED, subject to the $75,000 homestead exemption and the liens and encumbrances senior to Upstead’s and the loan payment deferral as identified in Defendant’s opposition. Upstead is to prepare and file a proposed order containing the terms required by section 704.780, subdivision (b).

Moving party is to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. Parties intending to appear are STRONGLY encouraged to appear remotely.

Case Number: BC536477    Hearing Date: August 13, 2020    Dept: 48

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: SALE OF DWELLING

On February 14, 2014, Plaintiffs Melvyn J. Bernie, individually and as trustee for the Bernie Family Trust dated October 31, 1990; Laurie S. Bernie, individually and as trustee for the Bernie Family Trust dated October 31, 1990; Mel Bernie & Company, Inc. dba 1928 Jewelry Company; Laurie B LLC; Emily A LLC; JEWELM LLC; and 1928 Watch Company (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Elsa Ramirez (“Defendant”). The Court entered a default against Defendant on April 23, 2014. The Court held a default prove-up hearing on June 9, 2015. On October 21, 2015, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant in the amount of $288,191.00, costs in the amount of $1,922.70, and interest at the annual rate of 10% from the date of entry of judgment. The Court issued an abstract of judgment on February 25, 2019.

At some point, Plaintiffs assigned the judgment to Upstream Capital Investments, LLC (“Upstream”). On April 22, 2019, Upstream filed an application for order for sale of the dwelling owned by Defendant and located at 10900 Marklein Avenue, Mission Hills, California 91345 (“Dwelling”). On July 2, 2019, the Court denied the application without prejudice.

A writ of execution issued on November 7, 2019, in the total amount of $406,102.73, plus daily interest of $79.48.

On February 26, 2020, Upstream filed this application for order for sale of the Dwelling.

Real property dwellings (defined in Code of Civil procedure section 704.710, subdivision (a)) may not be sold to enforce a money judgment except pursuant to a court order for sale obtained under section 704.740, subdivision (a). (In re Marriage of Schenck (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1474, 1480 (Marriage of Schenck).) Promptly after a real property dwelling has been levied upon, the levying officer must serve notice on the judgment creditor that the levy has been made and that the property will be released from the levy unless the creditor applies to the court for an order of sale. (Code Civ. Proc., § 704.750, subd. (a); see also Marriage of Schenck, supra, 228 Cal.App.3d at p. 1480.) After the creditor files an application for an order of sale, the court sets a time and place for hearing and orders the debtor to show cause why an order for sale should not be made. (Code Civ. Proc., § 704.770, subd. (a); see also Marriage of Schenck, supra, 228 Cal.App.3d at p. 1481.) The hearing must be scheduled not later than forty-five (45) days after the application is filed, unless the time is extended for good cause. (Code Civ. Proc., § 704.770, subd. (a); see also Marriage of Schenck, supra, 228 Cal.App.3d at p. 1481.)

The judgment creditor is required to serve copies of the order to show cause, the application for the order of sale, and the notice of the hearing on the debtors and on occupants of the dwelling at least thirty 30 days before the hearing on the application. (Code Civ. Proc., § 704.770, subd. (b); see also Marriage of Schenck, supra, 228 Cal.App.3d at p. 1479.) These documents must be served on the judgment debtors personally or by mail. (Code Civ. Proc., § 704.770, subd. (b)(1).) The judgment creditor must additionally personally serve a copy of each of the documents on an occupant of the dwelling in question, and if there is no occupant present at the time service is attempted, a copy of each document must be posted in a conspicuous place at the dwelling. (Code Civ. Proc., § 704.770, subd. (b)(2).)

On February 14, 2020, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department mailed a Notice to Creditor of Levy on Dwelling. (Application, Ex. 5.) Plaintiff timely filed this application on February 26, 2020, less than 20 days later.

The proof of service filed on March 9, 2010 indicates that on March 5, 2020, Defendant was served by Priority Mail at the Dwelling with (1) Order to Show Cause Why Order for Sale of Dwelling Should Not Be Made; (2) Assignee’s Application for Order for Sale of Dwelling and Issuance of Order to Show Cause Why Order for Sale Should Not be Made; (3) Memorandum of Points and Authorities; (4) Declaration of Cole Yeargin; and (5) Notice of Hearing on Right to Homestead Exemption. Additionally, the documents were posted in a conspicuous place at the Dwelling.

The hearing, originally scheduled for April 10, 2020, was continued by the Court to August 13, 2020 due to the pandemic. Upstream filed proofs of service by mail to the Dwelling of the Court’s minute orders continuing the hearing date and reassigning the case to the new department. However, there is no proof of service showing that notice of the new hearing date and new department was personally served on an occupant of the Dwelling or that, if there was no occupant present at the time service was attempted, a copy of the notice was posted in a conspicuous place.

Accordingly, the application for order for sale of dwelling is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. Parties intending to appear are STRONGLY encouraged to appear remotely.