In the Matter of: City of Sacramento

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 28 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8C OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION***

Receiver Housing Group Fund Corporation’s (“Receiver”) application for approval of proposed receivership plan is ruled upon as follows.

Receiver’s counsel is admonished for failing to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(f)(4), which provides, “Unless they are submitted by a self-represented party, electronic exhibits must include electronic bookmarks with links to the first page of each exhibit and with bookmark titles that identify the exhibit number or letter and briefly describe the exhibit.”

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015769: IN THE MATTER OF: CITY OF SACRAMENTO 07/06/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other on Receiver's Application for Approval of Receivership Plan in Department 8C

Failure to comply with these requirements in the future may result in papers not being considered, matters being continued so that papers may be submitted in the proper format, and/or the imposition of sanctions.

Background

Petitioner City of Sacramento (“City”) initiated this action by filing a petition for appointment of receiver pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 17980.7(c), which specifically authorizes the Court to appoint a receiver over substandard property if the property owner has failed to comply with a notice and order issued by a local agency after having had a reasonable opportunity to do so. This action involves four parcels of real property owned by Respondent in pro per Yen Wang (“Respondent”): (1) 3737 32nd Street, APN No. 020-0015-026-0000; (2) 800 Del Verde Circle, #4, APN No. 225-0900 001-0024; (3) 3117 Gardendale Road, APN No. 049- 0193-001-0000; and (4) 2650 Princeton Street, APN No. 266-0311-037-0000, (collectively, the “Subject Properties”).

On February 11, 2026, the Court granted City’s petition. The Court appointed Receiver “to oversee rehabilitation of the Subject Properties” (02/11/2026 Minute Order, p. 7), and granted Receiver various powers and duties, including the power:

To prepare a plan (the “Receivership Plan”) to either (a) rehabilitate the Property to correct all of the Property’s currently identified deficiencies and violations and all deficiencies and violations which may be subsequently discovered during the course of Receiver’s inspections and render the Property as decent, safe, sanitary, and marketable housing; or (b) address and remediate the Property’s deficiencies and violations through demolition or by some other means which is economically and practically feasible.

(02/19/2026 Order Appointing Receiver, p. 7:11-16.)

Receiver was also authorized to apply to the Court for approval to sell the Property in the condition described in the Receivership Plan, which may be as vacant land, as-is, or fully rehabilitated. (See 02/19/2026 Order Appointing Receiver, pp. 9:20-10:24.)

Receiver previously sought to obtain approval of a proposed receivership plan via ex parte application as permitted by the order appointing receiver. Respondent opposed. On June 8, 2026, the Court denied the application to the extent it sought approval of the proposed plan on an ex parte basis, stating:

While the Court’s prior order permitted the Receiver to submit as proposed receivership

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015769: IN THE MATTER OF: CITY OF SACRAMENTO 07/06/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other on Receiver's Application for Approval of Receivership Plan in Department 8C

plan on an ex parte basis, the proposed receivership plan submitted here proposes a somewhat drastic remedy of selling the subject properties “as is” to buyers who would then be responsible for completing abatement post-sale. Under these circumstances, the Court finds it appropriate to set the matter for hearing on a regularly noticed motion schedule. Moreover, the Court is not persuaded that irreparable harm or immediate danger will occur if the matter is heard on regular notice.

(06/08/2026 Minute Order, p. 1.)

In the same order, the Court set the present hearing and authorized the parties to file supplemental papers pursuant to a briefing schedule.

Receiver seeks approval of a proposed receivership plan (the “Plan”) that does not authorize a sale of the Subject Properties, but instead “authorizes Receiver to clean out, list, market, and vet conditional offers; every eventual sale returns to this Court on separate, noticed motion, where price, buyer, and fairness – and the Appointment Order’s floor of at least ninety percent of appraised value – will be tested with full opportunity to be heard.” (App. MPA, p. 2:9-12.) Receiver further contends:

What the Court fixes today is the disposition method, and that method is settled law: our Supreme Court has approved a receiver’s choice to forgo rehabilitation for a more economical disposition where the economics compel it, and the Court of Appeal has blessed the very mechanism Receiver proposes — an as-is, free-and-clear sale to a vetted buyer who completes the abatement after escrow, with junior liens stripped and attached to the proceeds.

(App. MPA, p. 2:12-16.)

Receiver asserts that this method of disposition of the Subject Properties is the only economically viable option due to the existence a Sacramento County tax lien of approximately $454,585.00 as of a hypothetical close date of August 1, 2026, with this amount increasing every month, compared to an aggregate as-is value of the Subject Properties of approximately $777,500.00. Receiver submits a declaration from Dennis Lanni, a lender with significant experience in underwriting and lending with respect to residential real estate.

According to Mr. Lanni, the aggregate as-is value of the Subject Properties is insufficient to secure any loan, let alone the funding needed to rehabilitate the properties. (Lanni Decl., ¶ 4.) Additionally, the estimated value of the Subject Properties after rehabilitation is $1,350,000.00, with the cost of the repairs estimated at $340,400.00. Mr. Lanni declares that the post-rehabilitation value is also too low to lend against, since the lender’s only recourse for repayment is through the equity in

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015769: IN THE MATTER OF: CITY OF SACRAMENTO 07/06/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other on Receiver's Application for Approval of Receivership Plan in Department 8C

the properties. According to Mr. Lanni, with the tax lien, $35,000.00 to cure HOA violations, sale costs of $108,000.00, plus other superiority administrative claims such as the fees charged by Receiver and Receiver’s counsel, there is too much risk that insufficient funds will be available from a post-rehabilitation sale to repay the amount of the loan needed. (Lanni Decl., ¶ 5.) Moreover, Mr. Lanni notes that since the Subject Properties have been tax-defaulted since the 2020-2021 fiscal year, they are subject to the County’s power to sell as of July 1, 2026 with the completion of five years of default, meaning they could be sold at a public auction conducted by the County for tax-defaulted properties, potentially in February of 2027.

If such a sale occurred, title would be conveyed to the purchaser free of any deed of trust securing a rehabilitation loan. (Lanni Decl., ¶ 6.) Finally, Mr. Lanni notes that the litigation history of Respondent, her husband, and her son, all of whom have been declared vexatious litigants, further enhances the risks of lending, since such behavior increases the potential for higher administrative costs that would erode the lender’s equity in the Subject Properties. (Lanni Decl., ¶ 8.)

Receiver contends that since the estate produces no income and cannot secure financing, and since the risk of a County tax auction extinguishing the estate and leaving the nuisances unabated becomes more acute every month, the proposed receivership plan calling for a supervised, as-is, all-cash sale, is the only economically viable disposition. Receiver argues, “The all-cash term is not an arbitrary narrowing of the buyer pool; it is what the timeline and the collateral require. These properties are distressed, presumptively uninsurable, and racing a county tax sale clock [citation]; a cash close avoids financing contingencies and appraisal-driven fall-through and lets a vetted redeveloper close fast enough to retire the tax debt before the auction.” (App. MPA, p. 4:13-16.)

Receiver also argues that Respondent has not submitted any specific or concrete evidence that she will be able to secure financing to rehabilitate the Subject Properties. Receiver contends that Respondent’s assurances of cooperation are merely delay tactics that Respondent will abandon when it suits her. Receiver contends that it has attempted to discuss Respondent’s assurances with her, such as her willingness and ability to fund the rehabilitation, her opinion on the necessary scope of the repairs called for by Receiver, and her request for access to the Subject Properties to inspect them.

However, Receiver represents that Respondent has consistently ignored or not followed through with discussion on these issues. Moreover, Receiver notes that there are judgment liens against Respondent attached to the Subject Properties totaling over $1.8 million, meaning that even if Respondent does cooperate in the administration of the receivership, it is unlikely that Respondent will be able to retain the Subject Properties or recover any equity in them.

Receiver sums up its position as thus: “[The] Plan abates a decade of hazards while salvaging the only value left to salvage, and every week of delay narrows the window to do either.” (App.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015769: IN THE MATTER OF: CITY OF SACRAMENTO 07/06/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other on Receiver's Application for Approval of Receivership Plan in Department 8C

MPA, p. 10:2-3.)

Respondent filed oppositions to both the ex parte application and to Receiver’s supplemental briefing authorized by the Court in its order setting this hearing. However, the proof of service for the opposition to the supplemental briefing states that the document was served via email only to an individual named Kathleen Monks with an email address of kmonks@cityofsacramento.org. It appears that Ms. Monks may be an employee of the City Attorney’s office. Thus, there is no evidence that the opposition to the supplemental briefing was served on Receiver, so it would be inappropriate to consider the opposition.

Moreover, the opposition makes several assertions without a supporting declaration, and thus no admissible evidence is presented. For example, Respondent asserts that as of January 30, 2026, “three of the four properties were substantially complete, with approximately ninety percent (90%) of the rehabilitation work having already been performed.” (Opp. filed 06/23/2026, p. 12:13-15.) Such an assertion must be supported by admissible evidence, and the bare assertion in Respondent’s brief has no evidentiary value.

Additionally, the opposition is bereft of citations to legal authority. Therefore, while the Court has reviewed and considered Respondent’s opposition filed on June 23, 2026, the opposition has not affected the Court’s determination on this application.

Discussion

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Respondent filed a notice of appeal of the Court’s order appointing Receiver on April 10, 2026. However, Health and Safety Code section 17980.7(i) states, “Notwithstanding Section 917.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an appeal of a court order or judgment issued pursuant to this article shall not stay proceedings upon the order or judgment, absent an extraordinary writ being issued by the appropriate appeals court upon a properly filed petition.” (Health and Saf. Code § 17980.7(i).) No extraordinary writ has been issued. Thus, Respondent’s appeal does not operate to stay proceedings on the Court’s order appointing Receiver, including the present application.

Receiver was appointed pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 17980.7, which authorizes a trial court to appoint a receiver to take control of and oversee a substandard property, with the receiver’s powers and duties subject to the appointment order. (Health & Saf. Code § 17980.7(c)(4); City of Santa Monica v. Gonzalez (2008) 43 Cal.4th 905, 930 (Gonzalez).) This includes the power to sell the property subject to court approval. (Health & Saf. Code § 17980.7(c)(4)(H).) In general, “court rulings on receivership matters are afforded considerable deference on review.” (Gonzalez, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 931.) “Such deference is the rule, even where the court confirms extraordinary action by the receiver, such as a sale of real property.” (Ibid.) “Where there is no evidence of fraud, unfairness, or oppression, the court has wide discretion in approving the receiver's proposed actions.” (Ibid.)

There is no evidence of fraud,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015769: IN THE MATTER OF: CITY OF SACRAMENTO 07/06/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other on Receiver's Application for Approval of Receivership Plan in Department 8C

unfairness, or oppression present here.

Upon review of the information submitted by Receiver, the Court finds that the proposed receivership plan is appropriate to abate the nuisances existing on the Subject Properties as described in the Court’s February 11, 2026 order granting City’s petition to appoint Receiver, while also ensuring that the County’s tax lien is satisfied. “[T]he primary object of a section 17980.7 receivership is to remediate code violations on a property that ‘are so extensive and of such a nature that the health and safety of residents or the public is substantially endangered,’ [citations]—not to ensure that debt payments are not missed.” (County of Sonoma v.

Quail (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 657, 678 (Quail).) The general type of proposal contained in the receivership plan—i.e., marketing the Subject Properties for sale as-is to an all-cash buyer while stripping all liens and encumbrances other than the County tax lien and the City’s notices of pending code enforcement—has been utilized and approved in prior cases. (See Quail, supra, 56 Cal.App.5th 657; see also City of Riverside v. Horspool (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 670.) The factors present here that support the proposed plan include the extent of the substandard conditions present at the Subject Properties, including the amount of time that the conditions have been present, the longstanding tax-default status of the Subject Properties, the value of the Subject Properties, both as-is and after rehabilitation, compared with the amount of the tax lien, the risk of a tax auction extinguishing all liens without abatement of the nuisances, the unlikelihood that financing could be secured to abate the nuisances, and the lack of any evidence that Respondent is willing or able to abate the nuisances.

Disposition

Receiver’s application is GRANTED.

The Court will sign the proposed order submitted with the application.