Debra Chimet vs. William Hall

34-2022-00320281-CU-OR-GDS: Debra Chimet vs. William Hall 06/13/2024 Hearing on Motion - Other To Appoint Partition Referee in Department 53

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 Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 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 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 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 in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.pdf.

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

34-2022-00320281-CU-OR-GDS: Debra Chimet vs. William Hall 06/13/2024 Hearing on Motion - Other To Appoint Partition Referee in Department 53

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.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Debra Chiment’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for an order: (1) ordering a partition by sale of the real property located at 4829 Dry Creek Road, Sacramento California 95814 (the “Property”), and (2) appointing Erin Stumpf as partition referee is DENIED without prejudice.

This is an action for the partition of real property containing a single-family home owned by former romantic partners, Plaintiff and Defendant William T. Hall (“Defendant”). On December 5, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication (“MSA”), finding that the parties are tenants in common with equal ownership interests and that Plaintiff was entitled to an interlocutory judgment for partition. The December 5, 2023 Order on the MSA left to be decided “the appropriate method of partition, the method for determining equitable offsets, and the appointment of a referee.” (Minute Order Dec. 5, 2023, at p. 4.)

On April 22, 2024, the Court subsequently entered a formal order granting Defendant’s motion for appointment of a referee to conduct an accounting. As set forth in the Court’s March 27, 2024 Minute Order granting the motion, the Court appointed attorney Matthew Taylor as a referee (“Referee”) to provide the Court with an “accounting of the various allowances, adjustments, and/or setoffs to which each party may be entitled under Code of Civil Procedure § 872.140 in connection with the eventual partition of the subject property, regardless of the manner of partition later found to be appropriate.” (Minute Order Mar. 27, 2024, at p. 3.) The Court ordered, consistent with the representations made in Defendant’s reply papers, that Defendant alone will be responsible for all fees and costs incurred by the Referee. (Ibid.)

After the Referee received a copy of the April 22, 2024 Order appointing him, he asked the parties for their input concerning how long they would need to prepare their claims packages for his review. (See Decl. of Adeeb Djawad ISO Def.’s Opp’n to Mot. ¶ 6, Ex. E.) On May 9, 2024, Defendant’s counsel responded that they would like 45 days. (Id. at ¶ 7, Ex. F.) After multiple follow up emails, on May 29, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel responded that 45 days was agreeable. (Id. at ¶¶ 8-13, Exs. G-L.) On May 29, 2024, the Referee set the claims deadline as July 18, 2024. (Id. at ¶ 14, Ex. M.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00320281-CU-OR-GDS: Debra Chimet vs. William Hall 06/13/2024 Hearing on Motion - Other To Appoint Partition Referee in Department 53

Notwithstanding that the Referee has neither completed his accounting, nor provided the Court with the same, Plaintiff now moves for an order appointing Erin Stumpf as a partition referee to conduct the marketing and sale of the Property.

Defendant opposes the motion, rejoining: (1) the passage of SB 9[1] in 2022 makes it possible and possibly lucrative to have a partition in kind versus sale, therefore (2) there is no need to appoint a realtor as a separate referee to complete a partition by sale when the Referee could supervise a realtor of Plaintiff’s choosing, and (3) sale of the property should be stayed until the Referee’s accounting is completed. (Opp’n 3-6-4:3.) Defendant asserts: “before the property is put for sale or divided in kind, the accounting must be determined so that Defendant is not forced to part with his Property, only for Plaintiff to be left with little to no proceeds from the Partition.” (Opp’n 5:11-13.)

Plaintiff did not file a reply brief.

Here, the Court appointed the Referee to prepare an accounting of the allowances, adjustments, and or set offs to which each party may be entitled under CCP section 872.140, and that accounting was contemplated to be done before any future partition is ordered.

As the claims deadline for the parties to submit their claims to the Referee does not expire until July 18, 2024, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s motion was prematurely filed insofar as the Court expected the accounting issues to be settled prior to proceeding with determining the manner of partition and execution thereof. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is denied without prejudice. The Court elects to deny the motion without prejudice versus continue the hearing date to a date after the Referee completes his accounting since the Court anticipates that the accounting will result in a motion for approval of the accounting and the resolution thereof will also likely affect the parties’ briefing on any motion to determine the manner of partition. As the timing of these motions have not yet been determined, a continuance is not appropriate.

To the extent Defendant seeks affirmative relief in its opposition, i.e., an order that the Referee determine the manner of partition and/or contract with Plaintiff’s relator to sell the property if partition in kind be unavailable, Defendant’s entitlement to such relief is not properly before the Court at this time.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

[1] Defendant represents that SB 9 permits R-1 residential, single family lots to be split. (Opp’n 6:10-12.) Defendant states he was unaware of the change in the law until

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00320281-CU-OR-GDS: Debra Chimet vs. William Hall 06/13/2024 Hearing on Motion - Other To Appoint Partition Referee in Department 53

he retained his current counsel after his prior attorney passed away. (Opp’n at p. 6, fn. 1.)