BOLLIG VS. GORDON

Defendants’ unopposed Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens is GRANTED.

Defendants Brenda Gordon, as Trustee of the Carol J. Bollig Trust; Carol Bollig, and Desmond Colleran move to expunge the lis pendens Plaintiff Krisztina Bollig recorded on 7/2/23.

Any party or a non-party having an interest in the property affected by a notice of lis pendens may move for expungement any time after the lis pendens is recorded on several grounds, including the claimant cannot prove the probable validity of the real property claim by a preponderance of the evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 405.30, 405.32.)

The claimant who filed the lis pendens has the burden of proof where the motion is made on the grounds that the action does not involve a real property claim or the action lacks probable validity. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 405.30, 405.31, 405.32.) If the claimant fails to meet his or her burden, the court must order that the notice be expunged and may not order an undertaking be given as a condition of expunging the notice. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 405.31, 405.32.)

Here, Plaintiff recorded a lis pendens on 7/6/23, against the real property at issue in this action and filed it with the court. (BMS Decl. at ¶ 4, Ex.1.) Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff commenced this action alleging, among other things, that an actual controversy has arisen where Plaintiff, on the one hand, and Defendants, on the other hand, claim to be the rightful owners of 100% interest in the property. (FAC, ¶¶ 9, 50-52; see also Cross-Compl., ¶ 5.) Thus, Defendants have an interest in the Property affected by the lis pendens.

On 12/31/25, the court dismissed Plaintiff’s operative complaint and entered Judgment in favor of all named defendants and against Plaintiff. (BMS Decl. at ¶ 6, Ex. 3.) Because the action has been dismissed, Plaintiff cannot establish the probable validity of her real property claim.

The motion is granted.