This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/26/2019 at 04:23:06 (UTC).

CHIAU-YU HSUEH VS KENNY MING HO LIU

Case Summary

On 12/06/2017 CHIAU-YU HSUEH filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against KENNY MING HO LIU. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Pomona Courthouse South located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are PETER A. HERNANDEZ and DUKES, ROBERT A.. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9863

  • Filing Date:

    12/06/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

PETER A. HERNANDEZ

DUKES, ROBERT A.

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

HSUEH CHIAU-YU

LIU ANGIE Y

HSUEHM ANGIE

ANGIE HSUEHM

LIU ANGIE Y.

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

LIU KENNY M. H.

LIU KENNY M.

HEDGESM JAMES K.

LIU KENNY MING HO

HEDGES JAMES K.

Cross Defendant and Defendant

HEDGES JAMES K.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

KLINKERT JAMES E.

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

CHENG PAUL P. LAW OFFICES OF

CHENG PAUL PO REN

 

Court Documents

Complaint

12/6/2017: Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet

12/6/2017: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Summons

12/6/2017: Summons

Notice

12/6/2017: Notice

Notice of Case Management Conference

12/8/2017: Notice of Case Management Conference

Unknown

1/30/2018: Unknown

Unknown

2/26/2018: Unknown

Unknown

2/26/2018: Unknown

Declaration

2/26/2018: Declaration

Unknown

3/9/2018: Unknown

Unknown

3/9/2018: Unknown

Notice of Ruling

3/13/2018: Notice of Ruling

Unknown

3/14/2018: Unknown

Unknown

3/19/2018: Unknown

Unknown

3/19/2018: Unknown

Unknown

3/28/2018: Unknown

Unknown

3/28/2018: Unknown

Minute Order

3/29/2018: Minute Order

23 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/29/2019
  • DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by KENNY MING HO LIU (Defendant); KENNY M. LIU (Defendant); KENNY M. H. LIU (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/19/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/04/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service and Failure to File Default Judgment Pursuant to CRC 3.740 - Held

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/04/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/04/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service and ...)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/01/2019
  • DocketSummons (on Cross Complaint); Filed by KENNY MING HO LIU (Cross-Complainant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/30/2019
  • DocketNotice (NOTICE OF HEARING); Filed by KENNY MING HO LIU (Defendant); KENNY M. LIU (Defendant); KENNY M. H. LIU (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/28/2019
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Ex-Parte Proceedings (EX PARTE NOTICE AND APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL RELATED DATES; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF REBECCA GARDNER; (PROPOSED) ORDER) - Held - Motion Granted

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/28/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Ex-Parte Proceedings EX PARTE NOTICE AND APPLICATION FOR ORDE...)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/28/2019
  • DocketOrder (GRANTING CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL AND ALL RELATED DATES); Filed by KENNY MING HO LIU (Defendant); KENNY M. LIU (Defendant); KENNY M. H. LIU (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
47 More Docket Entries
  • 02/26/2018
  • DocketDeclaration (OF JOHN M YENOKIAN)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/30/2018
  • DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/30/2018
  • DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/08/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/08/2017
  • DocketNotice-Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/06/2017
  • DocketComplaint Filed

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/06/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by CHIAU-YU HSUEH (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/06/2017
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/06/2017
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/06/2017
  • DocketNotice (OF PENDING ACTION)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****9863 Hearing Date: September 14, 2022 Dept: O

Background

Plaintiff Chiau-Yu Hsueh aka Angie Hsueh aka Angie Y. Y. Liu (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows:

On or about June 15, 1988, Plaintiff and Defendant Kenny Ming Ho Liu aka Kenny M. Liu aka

Kenny M.H. Liu (“Liu”) acquired the property located at 10 Tanglewood Drive in Pomona

(“Pomona Property”). Plaintiff provided a substantial portion of the down payment for the

purchase of the Pomona Property. In or around 1990, Plaintiff moved to Taiwan. At the time

Plaintiff left to Taiwan it was agreed between Plaintiff and Liu that they would continue to own

the Pomona Property jointly and Liu would manage and take care of same for their mutual

benefit. Within the last year, Plaintiff learned that Liu recorded a deed purporting to transfer title

to the Pomona Property to himself on or around April 29, 2008 (“Forged Deed”), without

Plaintiff’s consent. Within the last year Plaintiff also learned that Liu has encumbered the

Pomona Property without Plaintiff’s consent through a loan in the principal amount of $118,000,

which loan was used to purchase the property located at 236 South California Street in San

Gabriel (the “San Gabriel Property”), as evidenced by a deed of trust recorded April 5, 2012 (the

“Concealed Trust Deed”). The Forged Deed was falsely notarized by attorney James K. Hedges

(“Hedges”).

On December 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Liu, Hedges and Does 1-500 for:

1. Fraudulent Conveyance of Real Property

2. Breach of Fiduciary Duty

3. Violation of Statutes

4. Cancellation of Written Instruments

5. Quiet Title

6. Slander of Title

7. Partition

8. Accounting

9. Constructive Trust

On May 8, 2018, Hedge’s default was entered.

On May 21, 2018, Liu filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action against Hedges and Does 1-500 for:

1. Legal Malpractice

2. Equitable Indemnity

3. Contribution and Apportionment of Fault

On September 24, 2019, the court ordered Hedges dismissed, with prejudice, from Liu’s cross-complaint.

On October 18, 2019, Interlocutory Judgment was filed. On March 16, 2021, an “Amended Interlocutory Judgment” was filed, wherein Matthew Taylor (“Taylor”) was appointed as Partition Referee.

On October 27, 2021, a “Stipulation and Order Confirming Partition Referee’s Sale of San Gabriel Real Property and Related Orders” was filed. On November 24, 2021, Taylor filed a “Notice of Completion of Sale of Real Property in San Gabriel.” On March 9, 2022, a “Stipulation and Order Confirming Partition Referee’s Sale of Pomona Real Property and Related Orders” was filed. On April 11, 2022, Taylor filed a “Notice of Completion of Sale of Real Property (Pomona Property).”

On May 31, 2022 counsel for Liu’s motion to be relieved as counsel was granted.

Legal Standard

“The court shall appoint a referee to divide or sell the property [in a partition action] as ordered by the court.” (Code Civ. Proc., 873.010, subd. (a).) “The court may: . . . (2) Instruct the referee. (3) Fix the reasonable compensation for the services of the referee and provide for payment of the referee's reasonable expenses. . . (5) Require the filing of interim or final accounts of the referee, settle the accounts of the referee, and discharge the referee . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., 873.010, subd. (b).)

“The referee or any party may, on noticed motion, petition the court for instructions concerning the referee's duties under this title.” (Code Civ. Proc., 873.070.)

“The costs of partition include: . . .The fee and expenses of the referee.” (Code Civ. Proc., 874.010, subd. (b).) “The proceeds of sale for any property sold shall be applied in the following order: (a) Payment of the expenses of sale. (b) Payment of the other costs of partition in whole or in part or to secure any cost of partition later allowed. (c) Payment of any liens on the property in their order of priority except liens which under the terms of sale are to remain on the property. (d) Distribution of the residue among the parties in proportion to their shares as determined by the court.” (Code Civ. Proc., 873.820.)

“The court shall order the proceeds of sale and any security therefor to be paid, transferred, deposited in court, placed in trust, or invested in State of California or United States government obligations or interest-bearing accounts in an institution whose accounts are insured by an agency of the federal government, to or for the benefit of the persons in interest entitled thereto, as may be appropriate or as specifically provided in this article.” (Code Civ. Proc., 873.810.)

“When the proceeds of the sale belonging to persons who are parties to the action, whether known or unknown, have not been allocated among such parties, the action may be continued as between such parties, for the determination of their respective claims thereto, which must be ascertained and adjudged by the court. Further testimony may be taken in court, or by a referee, at the discretion of the court, and the court may, if necessary, require such parties to present the facts or law in controversy, by pleadings, as in an original action.” (Code Civ. Proc., 873.850.)

Discussion

Taylor moves the court for (1) discharge and (2) instructions regarding the disposition of the remaining money (i.e., $835,662.67) being held. Taylor seeks approval of fees incurred in this matter in the amount of $24,550.00 and an order to pay those fees from funds generated by the sale of the Pomona Property and San Gabriel Property. Taylor also seeks permission to pay $5,127.00 in fees and costs incurred by the prior Partition Referee Mitchell Roth (“Roth”), now deceased. Taylor recommends that the court order him to deposit the remaining funds (after payment of the requested professional fees) to the clerk of the court to be held until the court issues a final order as to the disposition of the funds.

On October 27, 2021, the court confirmed a sale of the San Gabriel Property to Liu, as buyer, for $800,000.00. Following payment through escrow of costs of sale, mortgages, liens, etc., Taylor received $219,464.05 including Liu’s initial deposit paid directly to Taylor. (Taylor Decl., 5, Exh. 1.) On March 9, 2022, the court confirmed a sale of the Pomona Property to buyers Johnny Ho and Jennifer Lam for $755,000.00. Following payment through escrow of costs of sale, liens, etc., Taylor received $619,720.82 including buyers’ initial deposit paid directly to Taylor. (Id., 6, Exh. 2.)

Taylor’s summary accounting is attached as Exhibit 3. (Id., 7.) Said document reflects a total income of $841,184.86 and total costs of $5,522.19 during the March 16, 2021 to April 11, 2022 time period, for a total remaining amount of $835,662.67.

Taylor’s request for payment of $24,55.00 in professional fees for his work on the case is set forth in Exhibit 5. (Id., 4.) Taylor served these charges on the parties in the form of periodic invoices and never received any objections to same. (Id.) Additionally, Taylor represents that on February 14, 2022 he received a claim for $2,280.00 in fees and $2,847.00 in cost reimbursements from attorney Layne Bartholomew, as Practice Administrator for Roth. (Id., 9, Exh. 4.)

The court, having received no opposition to the foregoing motion, is inclined to grant the proposed order in its entirety. The clerk of the court is to hold the $805,985.67 remaining balance until further order of the court. The court declines Plaintiff’s request to make a determination regarding disbursement on this date.



Case Number: ****9863 Hearing Date: May 31, 2022 Dept: O

Counsel for Defendant Kenny M. Liu’s (i.e., Law Office of Albert Siu, APC) Motion to Be

Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED, effective upon the filing of the proof of service showing

service of the signed order upon the Client at the Client’s last known address.

Background

Plaintiff Chiau-Yu Hsueh aka Angie Hsueh aka Angie Y. Y. Liu (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows:

On or about June 15, 1988, Plaintiff and Defendant Kenny Ming Ho Liu aka Kenny M. Liu aka Kenny M.H. Liu (“Liu”) acquired the property located at 10 Tanglewood Drive in Pomona (“Pomona Property”). Plaintiff provided a substantial portion of the down payment for the purchase of the Pomona Property. In or around 1990, Plaintiff moved to Taiwan. At the time Plaintiff left to Taiwan it was agreed between Plaintiff and Liu that they would continue to own the Pomona Property jointly and Liu would manage and take care of same for their mutual benefit. Within the last year, Plaintiff learned that Liu recorded a deed purporting to transfer title to the Pomona Property to himself on or around April 29, 2008 (“Forged Deed”), without Plaintiff’s consent. Within the last year Plaintiff also learned that Liu has encumbered the Pomona Property without Plaintiff’s consent through a loan in the principal amount of $118,000,

which loan was used to purchase the property located at 236 South California Street in San Gabriel (the “San Gabriel Property”), as evidenced by a deed of trust recorded April 5, 2012 (the “Concealed Trust Deed”). The Forged Deed was falsely notarized by attorney James K. Hedges (“Hedges”).

On December 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Liu, Hedges and Does 1-500 for:

  1. Fraudulent Conveyance of Real Property

  2. Breach of Fiduciary Duty

  3. Violation of Statutes

  4. Cancellation of Written Instruments

  5. Quiet Title

  6. Slander of Title

  7. Partition

  8. Accounting

  9. Constructive Trust

On May 8, 2018, Hedge’s default was entered.

On May 21, 2018, Liu filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action against Hedges and Does 1-500 for:

  1. Legal Malpractice

  2. Equitable Indemnity

  3. Contribution and Apportionment of Fault

On September 24, 2019, the court ordered Hedges dismissed, with prejudice, from Liu’s cross-complaint.

On October 18, 2019, Interlocutory Judgment was filed. On March 16, 2021, an “Amended Interlocutory Judgment” was filed.

On October 27, 2021, a “Stipulation and Order Confirming Partition Referee’s Sale of San Gabriel Real Property and Related Orders” was filed. On November 24, 2021, Partition Referee Matthew Taylor (“Taylor”) filed a “Notice of Completion of Sale of Real Property in San Gabriel.” On March 9, 2022, a “Stipulation and Order Confirming Partition Referee’s Sale of Pomona Real Property and Related Orders” was filed. On April 11, 2022, Taylor filed a “Notice of Completion of Sale of Real Property (Pomona Property).”

Discussion

The Law Offices of Albert Siu, APC (“Firm”) seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for Liu

(“Client”).

The court has discretion to allow an attorney to withdraw, and such a motion should be granted provided that there is no prejudice to the client and it does not disrupt the orderly process of

justice. (See Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915; People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398.)

California Rule of Court (“CRC”) Rule 3.1362 requires (1) a notice of motion and motion directed to the client (made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-051)); (2) a declaration stating in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship why a motion under Code of Civil Procedure 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under section 284(1) (made on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-052)); (3) service of the notice of motion and motion, the declaration, and the proposed order on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case; and (4) a proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-053)). The court may delay the effective date of the order relieving counsel until proof of service of a copy of the signed order on the client has been filed with the court.

Attorney Jenny Huang (“Huang”) states in her declaration that “because of the breakdown in the attorney-client relationship between [Firm] and [Client], it will not be practically or ethically possible for [her] or any of the other attorneys in [Firm] to represent [Client] or his interests in connection with any stipulation by the Referee (see Exhibit A), any related preparation efforts, or to otherwise represent him.” Counsel also cites to Rules of Professional Conduct 1.16(a)(1).[1]

Huang states that she has served the Client by mail at the client by mail at the Client’s last known address with copies of the motion papers served with this declaration and that she has confirmed, within the past 30 days, that the address is current, by telephone.

The court determines that the requirements of Rules of Court Rule 3.1362 enumerated above

have been sufficiently met.

Accordingly, the motion is granted, effective upon the filing of the proof of service reflecting

service of the signed order upon the Client at the Client’s last known address.


[1] Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.16, subdivision (a)(1) reads as follows: “(a) Except as stated in paragraph (c), a lawyer shall not represent a client or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a client if: (1) the lawyer knows* or reasonably should know* that the client is bringing an action, conducting a defense, asserting a position in litigation, or taking an appeal, without probable cause and for the purpose of harassing or maliciously injuring any person;*. . .”



Case Number: ****9863    Hearing Date: October 05, 2020    Dept: O

Defendant Kenny Ming Ho Liu’s motion to set aside entry of default and any default judgment is DENIED.

Defendant Kenny Ming Ho Liu (“Defendant”) moves to set aside entry of default per Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b):

The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Application for this relief shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted, and shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months after judgment, dismissal, order or proceeding was taken.

(CCP ; 473(b).)

The matter comes before the Court after a court trial on September 24, 2020. The Court ruled in favor of Plaintiff Chiau-Yu Hsueh (“Plaintiff”) and entered an Interlocutory Judgment for Partition of several properties on October 18, 2019. Defendant filed a “Motion to Partially Set Aside” the Judgment in this case on March 3, 2020 notwithstanding Plaintiff’s objections that improper notice was given as to the originally scheduled hearing date of March 26, 2020. As a result, the Court finds the motion timely.

However, the substance of Defendant’s motion is problematic. There is no credible evidence of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect that would allow the Court to exercise its discretion and grant the motion. The Court finds that Defendant’s candor with this Court is troubling. In his declaration, Defendant asserts that the court trial caught him by surprise which arguably would be a reason to grant Defendant’s requested relief. However, as shown in Plaintiff’s Opposition, Defendant knew as early as January 28, 2019 that trial would be held on September 24, 2019, when the Court granted his ex parte application to continue trial. Defendant’s claims that he was representing himself also do not provide him relief. He acknowledged to this Court on April 29, 2019 that he would be representing himself. Defendant was also present at a hearing on July 9, 2019 that the Final Status Conference would be held on September 12, 2019. When he failed to show up for the FSC, the Court ordered a court trial for the same date Defendant had been provided on numerous occasions – September 24, 2019. The Court finds Defendant’s statement that he was surprised by the court trial not credible and no reason to disturb the Interlocutory Judgment in this case.

Furthermore, Defendant’s disingenuous argument that he did not understand the proceedings because of his language skills is unavailing. At trial, the Court provided two Mandarin language interpreters to assist the parties to the litigation.

Finally, Defendant’s argument that he was “surprised” that the judgment included a property that Defendant could have presented evidence that would have negated Plaintiff’s claims also does not provide him relief. Section 473 does not provide a remedy to correct a failure to produce evidence or a response that a court may find persuasive. (Wiz Technology, Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1, 17.)

Sanctions

The Court will not order sanctions, but the Court will hear from Plaintiff in a future filing concerning the costs to litigate this motion.



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer CHENG PAUL PO REN

Latest cases represented by Lawyer CHENG PAUL P.