MIKE ROSEN VS. XIAO YAN CHEN, ET AL

6/04/26 - Law and Motion Calendar Judge Mark A. McCannon – Department 2 Page 8 of 18

2:00 PM LINE: 4 24-CIV-06875 MIKE ROSEN VS. XIAO YAN CHEN, ET AL

MIKE ROSEN LAWRENCE D. MILLER XIAO YAN CHEN JAMES M. BRADEN

PLAINTIFF MIKE ROSEN’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT

TENTATIVE RULING:

For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff Mike Rosen’s Motion for Entry of Interlocutory Judgment is GRANTED IN PART.

As the Court has already stated, and as the parties acknowledge, this case is subject to the Partition of Real Property Act (“PRPA”). Although the PRPA is intended to supplement the other partition statutes, “the property shall be partitioned under [the PRPA] unless all of the cotenants otherwise agree in a record.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 874.313, subd. (a).) The PRPA also “shall control over any provisions of this title that are inconsistent with this chapter.” (Id., subd. (b).)

Under the PRPA, unless either (1) the parties agree on a value for the property or another method of valuation, or (2) the court determines that the evidentiary value of an appraisal is outweighed by the cost of the appraisal, the court must order an appraisal and “appoint a disinterested real estate appraiser licensed in the State of California to determine the fair market value of the property assuming sole ownership of the fee simple estate.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 874.316, subd. (d).) The appraiser then files a report, the court provides notice to the parties of the information in the report, and a hearing is held to determine the fair market value of the property. (Id., subds. (e), (f).)

Most importantly at this stage, these procedural steps must be completed by the court “before considering the merits of the partition action,” as the Court previously made clear. (Code Civ. Proc., § 874.316, subd. (g).) The merits of a partition action include “[t]he interests of the parties” (id., § 872.610), “whether the plaintiff has the right to partition” (id., § 872.710, subd. (a)), and “the manner of partition” (id., § 872.720, subd. (a)).

As to the request for an appraisal, the notice of motion does not disclose that it seeks such relief, and the motion could be denied outright on that basis. However, Defendants Xiao Yan Chen, Angela Zhao, and Weilin Zhao have waived this defect. Further, there is no dispute that the appraisal procedure is the next proper procedural step, and the parties have nominated two appraisers for appointment.

Rosen nominates Lesta N. Lorrain, a certified residential appraiser licensed by the State since 2008, who estimates her fee will be $850 to appraise the property and states that she has no interest in the property. (Feb. 10, 2026 Declaration of Lesta N. Lorrain, ¶¶ 2-3; May 26, 2026 Supplemental Declaration of Lesta N. Lorrain, ¶¶ 1-2.) Defendants Xiao Yan Chen, Angela Zhao, and Weilin Zhao nominate Neil A. Lefmann, a certified general appraiser licensed since 1990, who estimates his fee will be $6,000 and states that he also is disinterested. (May 15, 2026 Declaration of Neil A. Lefmann, ¶¶ 1, 3.)

6/04/26 - Law and Motion Calendar Judge Mark A. McCannon – Department 2 Page 9 of 18

Both nominees satisfy the requirements of the PRPA. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 874.310, subd. (d).) Although Defendants argue that Lefmann has more experience, the additional expertise that may be supplied by that experience appears unnecessary in light of the substantially higher cost of his appraisal.

Accordingly, the Court appoints Lesta N. Lorrain as appraiser and orders her to determine the fair market value of the subject property, assuming sole ownership of the fee simple estate, as described in the Complaint, and to file a sworn or verified appraisal with the Court within forty-five (45) days of entry of the formal order.

The Court further orders the clerk of the court, no later than ten (10) days after the appraisal is filed, to send notice to each party through their respective attorneys of record stating: (1) the appraised fair market value of the property; (2) that the appraisal is available at the court clerk’s office; and (3) that a party may file an objection to the appraisal no later than thirty (30) days after the notice is sent, stating the grounds for the objection.

Upon the filing of the appraisal, any party may request that the Court set the evidentiary hearing required by Code of Civil Procedure section 874.316, subdivision (f), by reserving a hearing date and filing a notice of hearing pursuant to the Court’s regular law and motion procedures. After that hearing, the Court will determine the fair market value of the property and send notice to the parties.

Only after that time will the Court entertain a request to determine the interests of the parties in order to proceed with the buyout procedures under Code of Civil Procedure section 874.317. The Court will entertain a request to determine the manner of partition only after those procedures are completed.

The requests for all other orders in the motion are DENIED.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Plaintiff Mike Rosen shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court, and to appraiser Lesta N. Lorrain.