This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/24/2020 at 11:21:33 (UTC).

MELVYN J. BERNIE, ET AL. VS SUZZANE EDMEIER, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 02/14/2014 MELVYN J BERNIE filed a Property - Other Property Fraud lawsuit against SUZZANE EDMEIER. 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, EDWARD B. MORETON and LAURA A. SEIGLE. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6578

  • 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

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

EMILY A LLC

JEWELM LLC

LAURIE B LLC

MEL BERNIE & COMPANY INC.

UPSTREAM CAPITAL INVESTMENTS LLC

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 TO 100

EDMEIER JESSICA

EDMEIER NICHOLAS

EDMEIER SUZANNE

Assignee and Not Classified By Court

UPSTREAM CAPITAL INVESTMENTS LLC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

WEINTRAUB TOBIN LAW CORPORATION

GLASER STEVEN ESQ.

Assignee Attorney

YEARGIN COLE WILLIAM

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR ORDER MOTION FOR ORDER TO VOID TRANSFER...)

10/8/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR ORDER MOTION FOR ORDER TO VOID TRANSFER...)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR ORDER FOR APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATI...)

5/10/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR ORDER FOR APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATI...)

COMPLAINT FOR: 1) CONVERSION; ETC

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

JUDGMENT

10/21/2015: JUDGMENT

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF STATEMENT OF DECISION AFTER CIVIL DEFAULT PROVE UP AND NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

10/28/2015: NOTICE OF ENTRY OF STATEMENT OF DECISION AFTER CIVIL DEFAULT PROVE UP AND NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

Application for Order of Sale of Dwelling

11/19/2020: Application for Order of Sale of Dwelling

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ORDER FOR SALE OF DWE...)

11/17/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ORDER FOR SALE OF DWE...)

Response - RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF OPPOSITION TO CLAIM OF EXEMPTION (WAGE GARNISHMENT)

10/18/2019: Response - RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF OPPOSITION TO CLAIM OF EXEMPTION (WAGE GARNISHMENT)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR ORDER FOR APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATI...)

8/26/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR ORDER FOR APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATI...)

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and Examinati...)

3/8/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and Examinati...)

Notice of Rejection - Post Judgment

11/16/2018: Notice of Rejection - Post Judgment

SUMMONS -

2/14/2014: SUMMONS -

Minute Order -

2/26/2014: Minute Order -

DECLARATION RE DILIGENCE TO EFFECT PERSONAL SERVICE

5/21/2014: DECLARATION RE DILIGENCE TO EFFECT PERSONAL SERVICE

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF DEFAULT

5/22/2014: NOTICE OF ENTRY OF DEFAULT

Proof of Service -

3/5/2015: Proof of Service -

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL -

7/2/2015: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL -

76 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/19/2020
  • DocketApplication for Order of Sale of Dwelling; Filed by Upstream Capital Investments LLC (Assignee)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2020
  • Docketat 4:00 PM in Department 48, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order re: Order to Show Cause Why Order for Sale of Dwe...) of 11/17/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order re: Order to Show Cause Why Order for Sale of Dwe...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/05/2020
  • DocketApplication for Order of Sale of Dwelling; Filed by Upstream Capital Investments LLC (Assignee)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/08/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 48, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Order (Motion for Order to Void Transfer of Assets and to Appoint Receiver for Sale of Real Property Assets) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/08/2020
  • DocketWrit of Execution ((Los Angeles)); Filed by Upstream Capital Investments LLC (Assignee)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/08/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Order Motion for Order to Void Transfer...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/07/2020
  • DocketMemorandum of Costs After Judgment, Acknowledgment of Credit, and Declaration of Accrued Interest; Filed by Upstream Capital Investments LLC (Assignee)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/30/2020
  • DocketReply (to Plaintiff's Memorandum of Points and Authorities to Defendant's Opposition to Void Transfer of Assets); Filed by Suzanne Edmeier (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
143 More Docket Entries
  • 02/26/2014
  • Docketat 3:30 PM in Department 48; Court Order (Court Order; Court makes order) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2014
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2014
  • DocketMinute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2014
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2014
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by 1928 Watch Company (Plaintiff); Laurie S. Bernie (Plaintiff); Melvyn Bernie (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
  • 02/14/2014
  • DocketNotice of Related Case; Filed by Melvyn Bernie (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC536578    Hearing Date: October 08, 2020    Dept: 48

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR ORDER TO VOID TRANSFER OF ASSETS AND TO APPOINT RECEIVER FOR SALE OF REAL PROPERTY ASSETS

On October 21, 2015, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiffs Melvyn J. Bernie, Laurie S. Bernie, Mel Bernie & Company, Inc. dba 1928 Jewelry Company, Emily A LLC, Laurie B LLC, Jewelm LLC, and 1928 Watch Company and against Defendant Suzanne Edmeier (“Defendant”) in the amount of $298,682.55 plus $1,558.30 in costs. On August 17, 2018, Plaintiff assigned the judgment to Upstream Capital Investments, LLC (“Assignee”).

On September 1, 2020, Assignee filed this motion for order to void transfer of assets and to appoint receiver for sale of real property assets. Assignee’s request for judicial notice in connection with the motion is granted.

Void Transfer

Under the Uniform Voidable Transaction Act, a transfer made by a debtor may be voided when the transfer was made with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor. (Civ. Code., § 3239.4, subd. (a).) When determining actual intent, a court may consider, among other factors, whether the transfer or obligation was to an insider, whether the debtor retained possession or control of the property transferred after the transfer, whether the transfer or obligation was disclosed or concealed, whether the debtor had been sued or threatened with suit before the transfer was made or obligation was incurred, whether the transfer was of substantially all the debtor’s assets, whether the debtor absconded, whether the debtor removed or concealed assets, whether the value of the consideration received by the debtor was reasonably equivalent to the value of the asset transferred or the amount of the obligation incurred, whether the debtor was insolvent or became insolvent shortly after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred, whether the transfer occurred shortly before or shortly after a substantial debt was incurred, or whether the debtor transferred the essential assets of the business to a lienor that transferred the assets to an insider of the debtor. (Civ. Code, § 3439.04, sub. (b).) A creditor seeking to void a transfer must prove the elements of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. (Civ. Code, § 3439.04, sub. (c).)

Assignee seeks to void Defendant’s 50 percent transfer of her real property to her ex-husband, Paul Edmeier. On April 5, 2019, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department levied on the property at 825 Westmont Drive, Alhambra, California (“Property”), pursuant to a writ of execution. (Motion, Ex. E.) On May 6, 2019, Assignee filed its second amended application for order of sale of dwelling and order to show cause why order for sale should not be made. The Court set an order to show cause for June 12, 2019. On June 1, 2019, Defendant quitclaimed 50 percent of her interest in the Property to Paul Edmeier for no consideration. (Motion, Ex. F.) On July 1, 2019, the Court denied the application for order of sale due to an insufficient appraiser report. According to Assignee, the timing of the quitclaim deed and the lack of consideration for it show that the sole purpose of the transfer was to hinder Assignee’s enforcement efforts. (Motion at p. 6.) Assignee also notes that during the default prove-up hearing, the Court found that Paul Edmeier had fraudulently conveyed funds and assets to Defendant without consideration and for the purpose of evading creditors. (Id. at p. 4.)

In opposition, Defendant contends that, as part of her divorce agreement, she received a loan of $35,000, which she used to purchase the Property, to be paid back when the Property was sold. (Opposition at pp. 1-2.) After Defendant received the order to show cause why order for sale should not be made, she researched homestead exemption and learned that she would receive homestead protection in the amount of $75,000. (Id. at p. 2.) Defendant therefore decided to transfer 50 percent of the Property to her ex-husband so he would receive 50 percent of the homestead funds, to repay him for the $35,000 loan. (Ibid.)

Defendant retained possession of the Property after the transfer, as shown in her address listed on the opposition. The transfer was made shortly after Defendant received notice of the order to show cause why order for sale should not be made, with a potential sale looming. Defendant also made the 50 percent transfer for no consideration. Defendant did not submit evidence that her ex-husband accepted the transfer as repayment of the loan or that the 50 percent share of the property was worth no more than the $35,000 loan. To the contrary, the quitclaim deed states that the transfer was without consideration. Defendant also does not explain why the transfer was necessary and why she could not have given $35,000 to her ex-husband after receiving her homestead exemption.

There is no showing that Defendant’s transfer was concealed, that it was substantially all of her assets, that Defendant absconded, or that Defendant became insolvent. But “[t]here is no minimum number of factors that must be present before the scales tip in favor of finding of actual intent to defraud. This list of factors [in Civil Code section 3439.04, subdivision (b)] is meant to provide guidance to the trial court, not compel a finding one way or the other.” (Filip v. Bucurenciu (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 825, 834.) Defendant’s explanation, without evidence, does not overcome Assignee’s showing. Assignee has thus proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Defendant’s transfer of 50 percent of the Property was made with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud Assignee.

Accordingly, the motion for order to void transfer of assets is GRANTED.

Appoint Receiver

When seeking relief from a transfer, a creditor may seek appointment of a receiver to take charge of the asset transferred or other property of the transferee. (Civ. Code, § 3439.07, subd. (a)(3)(B).) “[A] trial court must consider the availability and efficacy of other remedies in determining whether to employ the extraordinary remedy of a receivership.” (Gold v. Gold (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 791, 807.) A court should appoint a receiver only in extreme cases and never when there is doubt about the necessity. (Morand v. Superior Court (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 347, 350.)

Assignee seeks appointment of a receiver because “[i]t is believed that without the appointment of a Receiver and a court ordered judicial sale of the property, it is likely that Defendant will make further attempts to alienate the property or place it beyond the reach of creditors,” and Assignee believes that Defendant will continue to hinder and delay the enforcement of judgment. (Motion at p. 7.) However, Assignee provides no evidence, other than the prior transfer, to prove that Defendant will hinder and delay enforcement of the judgment.

Accordingly, the motion to appoint receiver for sale of real property assets is DENIED.

OSC Re: Sale of Dwelling

Assignee also requests that the Court set an order to show cause why order for sale of dwelling should not take place. (See Motion at pp. 7-8; Proposed Order at pp. 2-3.) This request is DENIED without prejudice to Assignee’s filing of a properly noticed application for sale of dwelling.

Moving party 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.