Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/23/2019 at 10:02:52 (UTC).

MATTHEW F QUINT VS ICA REALTY CORP ET AL

Case Summary

On 08/11/2017 MATTHEW F QUINT filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against ICA REALTY CORP. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are RITA MILLER and ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2187

  • Filing Date:

    08/11/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

RITA MILLER

ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

QUINT MATTHEW

Defendants and Respondents

ZOHAR RAFAEL

CANDIOTY LEO H.

ICA REALTY CORP.

CANDIOTY ESTHER

BERROCAL PETER

DOES 1 TO 10

KATZIN EZRA

WONG GORDON L.K. DDS

WONG DDS GORDON L.K.

KATZIN

DRAPKIN DOE 1 PAUL

Not Classified By Court

SINGER KEVIN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

HALLOCK KAREN L.

US DLA PIPER LLP

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

CHAZEN STEPHEN J. ESQ.

AKINYEMI WOLE ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

5/1/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

7/10/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

7/11/2018: Minute Order

DECLARATION OF SUPERIOR COURT REFEREE KEVIN A. SINGER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ENFORCE THE PARTIES' SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

8/16/2018: DECLARATION OF SUPERIOR COURT REFEREE KEVIN A. SINGER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ENFORCE THE PARTIES' SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

DECLARATION OF KAREN L. HALLOCK, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ENFORCE THE PARTIES' SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

8/16/2018: DECLARATION OF KAREN L. HALLOCK, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ENFORCE THE PARTIES' SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

8/17/2018: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

OATH OF REFEREE

9/11/2018: OATH OF REFEREE

UNDERTAKING UNDER SECTION 873010(B)

9/11/2018: UNDERTAKING UNDER SECTION 873010(B)

Declaration

10/15/2018: Declaration

Minute Order

10/16/2018: Minute Order

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

2/20/2019: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Brief

2/25/2019: Brief

Minute Order

1/10/2018: Minute Order

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

12/4/2017: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

12/8/2017: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

Unknown

11/13/2017: Unknown

Unknown

11/13/2017: Unknown

DEFENDANT PETER BERROCAL VERIFIED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

10/10/2017: DEFENDANT PETER BERROCAL VERIFIED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

110 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/21/2019
  • Superior Court Referees Report for April 2019 and Notice of Intent Pay Referees Fees and Expenses; Filed by Kevin Singer (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2019
  • Brief (Superior Court Referees Report for March 2019 and Notice of Intent Pay Referees Fees and Expenses); Filed by Kevin Singer (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/25/2019
  • Brief (Superior Court Referees Report for February 2019 and Notice of Intent Pay Referees Fees and Expenses); Filed by Kevin Singer (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2019
  • Superior Court Referees Report for January 2019 and Notice of Intent to Pay Referees Fees and Expenses; Filed by Kevin Singer (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2019
  • Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Kevin Singer (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2019
  • Brief (Superior Court Referees Initial Report and Notice of Intent to Pay Referees Fees and Expenses); Filed by Kevin Singer (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/18/2019
  • Brief (Superior Court Referee's Report for November 2018 and Notice of Intent to Pay Referee's Fees and Expenses); Filed by Kevin Singer (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2018
  • Superior Court Referee's Report for October 2018 and Notice of Intent to Pay Referee's Fees and Expenses

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/04/2018
  • Notice of Continued Order to Show Cause RE Dismissal (Settlement); Filed by MATTHEW QUINT (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2018
  • at 08:59 AM in Department 16; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
223 More Docket Entries
  • 09/14/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2017
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2017
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2017
  • Notice; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2017
  • NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF ACTION (LIS PENDENS)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/18/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/18/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/11/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/11/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by MATTHEW QUINT (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC672187    Hearing Date: July 16, 2020    Dept: 20

Tentative Ruling

Judge David J. Cowan

Department 20


Hearing Date: Thursday, July 16, 2020

Case Name: Quint v. ICA Realty Corp. et al.

Case No.: BC672187

Motion: Approval of Final Accounting

Moving Parties: Referee Kevin Singer

Responding Party: Plaintiff Quint; Defendants ICA Realty Corp. & Peter Berrocal

Notice: OK


Ruling: The Motion for Approval is CONTINUED to September 17, 2020 at 8:30 a.m.

Referee is to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by court call.


BACKGROUND 

On March 11, 2020, the Court heard argument on the motion and adopted its tentative ruling requesting the parties submit additional information for the court to consider. The Court incorporates the rulings previously for which no further information was needed. Concerning the matters as to which further information was needed, the Court has since then considered the various papers filed by Plaintiff Matthew Quint (“Quint”), the referee Kevin Singer (“Singer”), and defendants ICA Realty Corp. and Peter Berrocal (together referred to herein as “Berrocal.”)

 

DISCUSSION

The Court denies the motion of Quint to strike Berrocal’s late filed response to Quint and Singer’s supplemental briefs. Though there is some validity to Quint’s objection, Berrocal did timely submit a declaration. The Court finds, as discussed below, that ultimately Quint is not prejudiced so as to require Berrocal’s later filed response be stricken.

The Court rules as follows concerning the remaining issues on the accounting:

1. Quint has now provided proof that the DLA Piper bills were paid for Quint – thereby making moot Berrocal’s claim that Singer should not reimburse those to Quint.  

2. Berrocal is not now seeking the balance owed in fees to his attorney in the sum of $1,535.

3. Quint is entitled to reasonable fees only for the common benefit. Some of the fees were incurred for that purpose. Some portion was related to advancing his own interests and defeating Berrocal’s position – which was not to sell property. While the agreement provided for fees to Quint, there was no agreement to a specific amount. In turn, the later order that gave rise to the sale (and would have superseded the earlier agreement) did not provide for fees. Taking all the foregoing into account, the Court finds one half of Quint’s fees may be apportioned equally among all owners and one half is Quint’s own responsibility (as all of Berrocal’s fees will be).

4. Initially, the Court previously questioned why Singer included disputed amounts be distributed in favor of Quint where Berrocal contends he timely objected to Singer proposing such distribution. Singer contends that the September 7, 2018 order allowed him to propose a distribution. The order, however, does not expressly provide Singer the right to decide contested claims. Even if it impliedly it does so, the motion did not make clear the referee was taking on such adjudicative function – which it should have. A court needs to determine contested issues or expressly delegate that function, if permissible. Assuming for these purposes, Berrocal timely objected, the two issues for the referee in the first instance are as follows: whether Berrocal’s share of the distribution should be offset by (1) amounts he received in rental payments and (2) property taxes that were not paid when Berrocal was in possession and for penalties or interest that was assessed for such non-payment during that time. The taxes themselves should be evenly apportioned among all owners. It is also not clear if Berrocal had sufficient rent on hand to pay applicable taxes or interest at the relevant times if there were evictions.

5. Quint submitted testimony from Berrocal showing Berrocal received rent in the total sum of $94,575 from January 2012 through September 2018 when Singer took possession. Berrocal submitted, however, contrary evidence suggesting there was an eviction of tenants at the property in 2012 (for which he paid an attorney $2,500), as well as in 2015 (for which he paid a lawyer $6,000) and again in 2018. It is not clear what loss in rent was caused by having to evict tenants. In addition, Berrocal contends that he spent $16,000 in 2011 to improve the property. Ex. F to his declaration provides an accounting Berrocal provided the other owners. Given all of the foregoing, the final amount is unclear. Other owners also did not contribute to any amounts paid for fees, improvements or other overhead. As to this final amount, it is apparently undisputed Berrocal did not distribute any of what rent he did receive to the other part-owners.

6. Quint also contends Berrocal is responsible for tax penalties in excess of $25,000 for the above time period when Berrocal was collecting rent and knew taxes were due. By contrast, Berrocal attaches as Ex. E to his declaration a property tax statement from which he concludes that the penalties would be $2,666.37 (given that penalties had also accrued from periods prior to Berrocal obtaining an interest in the property.) It is unclear if the tax figure Singer provided included taxes, interest or penalties prior to 2012 or why he still believes Berrocal’s conclusions are not “credible.”

7. Singer has not weighed in on these issues to date and his initial report did not explain why he concluded Berrocal should be solely responsible for all of what Quint contended.  

8. The Court cannot determine what the final amount should be without further insight into the new information provided. The referee is now expressly tasked with reconciling these contentions and submitting a supplemental report within thirty days; taking into consideration the evidence offered by both sides. Any objections thereto should be submitted within fifteen days thereafter. Alternatively, to avoid further expense, the parties are encouraged to reach a further settlement of these remaining issues. The Court will hold a further hearing after considering all of the foregoing.

For these reasons, the Motion is again continued; this time to September 17, 2020 at 8:30 a.m.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer HALLOCK KAREN LEE