Lozada v. WVJP CA1/5

Filed 6/25/21 Lozada v. WVJP CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

CANDY LOZADA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WVJP 2017-2, L.P., A162277 Defendant and Appellant. (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCV267396)

Candy Lozada sought a preliminary injunction against WVJP 2017-2, L.P. (WVJP) to restrain it from enforcing a levy on two properties after a money judgment had been obtained against Lozada’s former husband. Lozada argued that WVJP did not have any interest, right, or title to the properties because she had previously been awarded sole ownership pursuant to the dissolution judgment from her divorce. She acknowledged, however, that her former husband’s name had never been removed on the title to the properties. The trial court issued a preliminary injunction. On appeal, WVJP contends that the trial court abused its discretion because Lozada failed to satisfy her burden of establishing a sufficient likelihood of prevailing on the merits of her claims. We agree and reverse.

1

BACKGROUND Lozada was married to her husband Salvador prior to 2008. They owned one property in Santa Rosa as community property, and another property in Windsor as joint tenants. Lozada subsequently petitioned for dissolution of the marriage. Lozada was self-represented and her husband did not participate in the divorce proceedings. In 2008, the judgment of dissolution awarded both properties to Lozada as her sole separate property. It further ordered that Lozada’s husband “shall cooperate in signing any and all documents necessary to confirm the real property stated above to Wife as her sole and separate property, including any quitclaim deeds or other documentation.” Importantly, no such documentation was executed or recorded following the dissolution judgment. In 2013, a money judgment was obtained by Excel Realty Partners, L.P. against Lozada’s former husband in the amount of $223,553.62. In 2014, an abstract of the money judgment was recorded in the Sonoma County Recorder’s Office. In June 2020, the money judgment was assigned to WVJP. In October 2020, a writ of execution was issued for the money judgment and accrued interest. In December 2020, a notice of levy was recorded for each property. In November 2020, Lozada sued Excel Realty Partners, L.P. and amended the complaint shortly thereafter to name WVJP as a defendant. The complaint asserts four causes of action: (1) injunctive relief for temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction; (2) declaratory relief; (3) quiet title; and (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress. Each cause of action is premised on the allegation that Lozada obtained sole ownership of the properties pursuant to the dissolution