BEHNIWAL v. Superior Court

Opinion

SILLS, P. J.

This writ proceeding (G035299) is closely related to an appeal

(Behniwal v. Mix

(2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1027 [35 Cal.Rptr.3d 320]), in that both substantively challenge the trial court’s ruling that the prospective buyers of an Irvine condo never actually obtained a contract for its sale. The procedural aim of this writ proceeding is to preserve the status quo pending completion of the appeal, essentially by keeping a notice of lis pendens on the property, unexpunged. In more specific terms this writ proceeding seeks an order requiring the trial court to vacate an order

expunging

the notice of lis pendens, or, alternatively, seeks a writ of supersedeas staying the order expunging the notice of lis pendens.

The irony is, it was this court that originally ordered the trial court to expunge the lis pendens, in our published decision,

Mix v. Superior Court

(2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 987 [21 Cal.Rptr.3d 826]. Here is the story: The trial court originally

refused

to expunge the notice of lis pendens, and that decision was challenged by the “sellers,” real parties Gene C. and Jo Anne Mix. But the standard the trial court used to determine whether to expunge the notice of lis pendens was incorrect (it had been superseded by reform legislation in 1992), and this court took the opportunity in

Mix

v.

Superior Court

to set things straight. Using the correct standard prescribed by the Legislature in 1992 (the “probable validity” standard from the

perspective of the trial

judge—see

id.

at p. 995) meant that the trial court was required to expunge the notice of lis pendens

unless

the court was willing to prophecy its own reversal (see