NOVOTNY, et al. vs NOVOTNY, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE VLAD JOSEPH NOVOTNY REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST DATED SEPTEMBER 24, 2019, et al.

26CV001461: NOVOTNY, et al. vs NOVOTNY, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE VLAD JOSEPH NOVOTNY REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST DATED SEPTEMBER 24, 2019, et al. 07/14/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Interlocutory Judgment of Partition and Appointment of Referee in Department 16D

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Department 16D Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-3056 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 16D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16146506749 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-services-transcripts. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be

26CV001461: NOVOTNY, et al. vs NOVOTNY, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE VLAD JOSEPH NOVOTNY REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST DATED SEPTEMBER 24, 2019, et al. 07/14/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Interlocutory Judgment of Partition and Appointment of Referee in Department 16D

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 forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

****NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. PARTIES MAY CONTINUE TO APPEAR REMOTELY IN DEPARTMENT 16D UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ORDERED OTHERWISE.*****

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiffs Michelle Novotny and Provident Trust Group, LLC F/B/O Michell Novotny IRA’s (“plaintiffs”) motion for default interlocutory judgment of partition and appointment of referee is ruled upon as follows.

Plaintiffs’ unopposed request for judicial notice is granted for the limited purposes permitted for judicial notice. (See, Evid. Code §451, subd. (a); §452, subds. (b)-(d); see also, Johnson & Johnson v. Superior Court (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 757, 768 [court may take judicial notice of the existence of court documents but not the truth of the statements contained therein]; Kilroy v. State of California (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 140, 145-148; Sosinsky v. Grant (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1569-70.)

Background

Plaintiffs commenced this action on January 22, 2026, filing a complaint for partition of the following real properties:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV001461: NOVOTNY, et al. vs NOVOTNY, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE VLAD JOSEPH NOVOTNY REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST DATED SEPTEMBER 24, 2019, et al. 07/14/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Interlocutory Judgment of Partition and Appointment of Referee in Department 16D

1) a single-family residence located at 2313 Pamela Ln, Sacramento, CA 95825, Assessor’s Parcel Number 278-0036-004 (the “Pamela Ln Property”),

2) a single-family residence located at 2143 Rassy Way, Sacramento, CA 95821, Assessor’s Parcel Number 266-0344-015-0000 (the “Rassy Way Property”), and

3) a single-family residence located at 5019 Point Prim Court, Carmichael, CA 95608, Assessor’s Parcel Number 271-0101-017-0000 (the “Point Prim Court Property”)

(Notice at 2:7-11.)

Plaintiffs move for interlocutory judgment of partition and appointment of referee. Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to an interlocutory judgment of partition because Plaintiffs did not waive their right to partition and the “undisputed” ownership interest of the Plaintiff and defaulted Defendant Vlad Joseph Novotny as Trustee of the Vlad Joseph Novotny Revocable Living Trust, dated September 24, 2019 (“Defendant”) are as follows:

Pamela Ln Property: Michelle owns 50%, Defendant owns 50%; Rassy Way Property: Michelle owns 50%, Defendant owns 50%; Point Prim Court Property: the Michelle IRA owns 53.5%, Defendant owns 46.5%.

(Memorandum at 5:19-24.) Plaintiffs also argue that Defendant Ludmila M. Novotny, individually and as alleged co-trustee of the Vlad Joseph Novotny Revocable Living Trust, dated September 24, 2019, (“Co-Trustee”) stipulated to the relief sought herein on February 9, 2026. (See Exhibit 1 attached to the Declaration of Scott Talkov (“Talkov Decl.”) Re: Proof of Service, Non-Opposition of Ludmila M. Novotny to Request Relief in Complaint for Partition of Real Property, filed 2/10/2026.) Co-Trustee Ludmila M. Novotny has not yet appeared in this action and no default has been entered against her.

Discussion

As a preliminary matter, to the extent Plaintiffs intended to seek a default interlocutory

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV001461: NOVOTNY, et al. vs NOVOTNY, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE VLAD JOSEPH NOVOTNY REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST DATED SEPTEMBER 24, 2019, et al. 07/14/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Interlocutory Judgment of Partition and Appointment of Referee in Department 16D

judgment, the present motion is procedurally improper as it has been set on the Court’s law and motion hearing calendar. All requests for default judgment which do not involve a claim to quiet title or which have not otherwise been ordered to be set on the law and motion hearing calendar, must be sought through the Court’s Default Judgment Unit. In furtherance of its power to control its calendar, the Court processes requests for default judgment through its Default Judgment Unit pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 585 and California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1800.

To the extent that Plaintiff believes it has sufficient grounds for entry of a default interlocutory judgment binding the defendants to this action, Plaintiff must submit its request for a default interlocutory judgment through the Default Judgment Unit. If the Court determines that the matter must be set on the law and motion hearing calendar, it shall indicate so after reviewing the default judgment package. Otherwise, the Court will rule upon the default judgment package. As a result, the Court denies the present motion without prejudice to Plaintiffs submitting a default judgment package with the Default Judgment Unit to the extent that Plaintiffs believe they are entitled to an interlocutory judgment by default.

The Court again notes, however, that the Co-Trustee is not currently in default.

Alternatively, to the extent Plaintiffs intended to proceed by motion to obtain a judgment that would bind any party who is not in default, such as the Co-Trustee, Plaintiffs’ current and generalized motion for “default interlocutory judgment of partition” is not authorized under the Code of Civil Procedure. Again, the Co-Trustee, although named in this action, has neither appeared nor has had default entered against her. While Code of Civil Procedure section 872.210 authorizes a co-owner of property to bring an action for partition, Section 872.710, subdivision (a) clarifies that the Court shall determine whether the plaintiff has the right to partition “[a]t the trial.” Thus, as a general rule, no partition can be had until the interests of all the parties have been ascertained and settled by a trial, where the Court determines whether the plaintiff has the right to partition. (Id.; see also, Bacon v.

Wahrhaftig (1950) 97 Cal.App.2d 599, 603.) However, an interlocutory judgment for partition can be appropriately granted pursuant to a motion for summary judgment/adjudication prior to trial, provided the procedural and substantive requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 437c and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1350 are satisfied including proper notice and establishment of undisputed material facts demonstrating the moving party’s entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. (See, e.g., LEG Investments v.

Boxler (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 484.)

Although a motion for summary judgment may be an appropriate alternative to trial in a partition action, there is no legal authority by which a party may obtain an interlocutory

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV001461: NOVOTNY, et al. vs NOVOTNY, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE VLAD JOSEPH NOVOTNY REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST DATED SEPTEMBER 24, 2019, et al. 07/14/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Interlocutory Judgment of Partition and Appointment of Referee in Department 16D

judgment as a matter of law based through a mere generalized “motion” which does not adhere to any of the procedural or substantive requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 437c or California Rules of Court, rule 3.1350. While the Court need not proceed further, the Court also observes that Plaintiffs[1] provide no legal authority showing that the Co-Trustee’s stipulation is sufficient to serve as a responsive pleading to Plaintiffs’ verified complaint. Indeed, summary judgment may not be sought against a party that has yet to appear in the action or have default entered against it.

Because Plaintiffs’ present motion is (1) improperly placed on calendar to the extent it was intended to seek a default interlocutory judgment; and (2) impermissible under the Code of Civil Procedure and California Rules of Court to the extent it was intended to seek summary judgment against any or all parties (including non-defaulted parties), Plaintiffs’ motion is denied.

Disposition

For the reasons explained above, Plaintiffs’ motion for interlocutory judgment of partition and appointment of referee is denied.

However, this ruling is without prejudice to Plaintiffs’ right to seek a default interlocutory judgment through the Court’s Default Judgment Unit or to bring a motion for summary judgment to the extent that Plaintiffs intend to seek an interlocutory judgment applicable to a non-defaulted defendant.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or other notice is required.

[1] Plaintiffs’ counsel asserts in his declaration that “My firm does not represent [Co-

Trustee]; thus, we do not wish to pay for their first appearance fee.” (Talkov Decl., ¶ 4.) Plaintiffs’ unwillingness to pay Defendants’ first appearance fee is not a legally sufficient justification for Plaintiffs’ failure to obtain a responsive pleading from or default of the Co-Trustee prior to seeking partition of the real properties.