Howard v. City of San Diego CA4/1

Filed 7/18/22 Howard v. City of San Diego CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

ALICE HOWARD, D078835

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v. (Super. Ct. Nos. 37-2018- 00037598-CU-PT-CTL & CITY OF SAN DIEGO, 37-2018-00058573-CU-PT-CTL)

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Timothy B. Taylor, Judge. Affirmed. Alice Howard, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Mara W. Elliott, City Attorney, George F. Schaefer, Assistant City Attorney, and Tyler L. Krentz, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendant and Respondent.

Alice Howard appeals the judgment granting the petition of the City of San Diego (the City) for release of rental payments that were deposited into court during the pendency of her appeal of the judgment in the City’s unlawful detainer action against her. Howard alleges judicial bias, violation

of an automatic bankruptcy stay, and fraudulent alteration of the trial court record, but she presents no factually and legally persuasive argument that would warrant reversal of the judgment. We therefore affirm. I. BACKGROUND On June 1, 2011, the City obtained a judgment for possession and damages in an unlawful detainer action against Howard concerning her lease of a space at the former De Anza Cove Mobilehome Park. Howard appealed the judgment. The appellate division of the superior court stayed execution of the judgment and as a condition ordered Howard to deposit rent and utilities charges into court while the appeal was pending. The appellate division affirmed the judgment on January 30, 2014. After the remittitur issued, the trial court added attorney fees and costs to the judgment. Howard received notice in 2018 that a portion of the funds deposited into court during the pendency of her appeal of the unlawful detainer judgment had escheated to the state, and in response she commenced a new case by filing a petition for release to her of the “several thousand dollars” she had deposited. About four months later, the City commenced another new case by filing a petition for release to it of the deposited funds. The trial court consolidated the cases. At a hearing on April 25, 2019, at which Howard did not appear, the court (Hon. David M. Rubin) denied Howard’s petition and granted the City’s. It appears the court was unaware that about two hours before the hearing Howard had filed for bankruptcy. She appealed the ensuing judgment granting the City’s petition, which this court summarily reversed because it was entered in violation of the automatic stay triggered by Howard’s bankruptcy filing.