Procedural Posture los angeles corporate lawyer San Diego California United States

June 15, 2021

Appellant creditors sought review of the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which was in favor of respondent, the son of the judgment debtors, who had brought the action to quiet title to a property formerly owned by the judgment debtors.

Overview: california rule of court 8.204

The creditors obtained a judgment against the judgment debtors. When the creditors were unable to collect their judgment, they assigned their judgment to a collection agency to hold an execution sale. The creditors intended that the property be sold for at least $ 15,000, but because of an error on the part of the collection agency, the property was sold by the marshal for $ 25 to a party who then sold the property to the son. The son filed an action to quiet title, basing his claim on the marshal’s deed. The trial court ruled in favor of the son. The creditors appealed, but the court affirmed. The court held that the marshal’s failure to obtain the minimum bid for the property did not render the sale void because no fundamental public policy was violated. However, the court did find that the sale was voidable at the instance of an aggrieved party. The creditors did not qualify as an aggrieved party because they initiated the sale through the collection agency and were estopped from contesting it after the one-year period for redemption had passed.

Outcome

The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment that was in favor of the son in his action to quiet title to the property formerly owned by the judgment debtors.

The creditors obtained a judgment against the judgment debtors. When the creditors were unable to collect their judgment, they assigned their judgment to a collection agency to hold an execution sale. The creditors intended that the property be sold for at least $ 15,000, but because of an error on the part of the collection agency, the property was sold by the marshal for $ 25 to a party who then sold the property to the son. The son filed an action to quiet title, basing his claim on the marshal’s deed. The trial court ruled in favor of the son. The creditors appealed, but the court affirmed. The court held that the marshal’s failure to obtain the minimum bid for the property did not render the sale void because no fundamental public policy was violated. However, the court did find that the sale was voidable at the instance of an aggrieved party. The creditors did not qualify as an aggrieved party because they initiated the sale through the collection agency and were estopped from contesting it after the one-year period for redemption had passed.
The creditors obtained a judgment against the judgment debtors. When the creditors were unable to collect their judgment, they assigned their judgment to a collection agency to hold an execution sale. The creditors intended that the property be sold for at least $ 15,000, but because of an error on the part of the collection agency, the property was sold by the marshal for $ 25 to a party who then sold the property to the son. The son filed an action to quiet title, basing his claim on the marshal’s deed. The trial court ruled in favor of the son. The creditors appealed, but the court affirmed. The court held that the marshal’s failure to obtain the minimum bid for the property did not render the sale void because no fundamental public policy was violated. However, the court did find that the sale was voidable at the instance of an aggrieved party. The creditors did not qualify as an aggrieved party because they initiated the sale through the collection agency and were estopped from contesting it after the one-year period for redemption had passed.

Article Tags:
Article Categories:
Business

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *