Countrywide Home v. Country Home Loans, et al

Filing 337

DIRECTIONS FOR ADDITIONAL BRIEFING; ORDER, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 5/5/2015. (IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The parties file simultaneous briefings on or before 5/18/2015 and replies on or before 5/25/2015 about how the rule of mandate applies to this matter (1) generally in relation to the writs of execution and the abstract of judgment and (2) specifically to the order setting the amount of the equitable lien.)(Gaumnitz, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 8 COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, Inc. a New York Corporation, 11 v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, acting (DOC. 331 & 332) through the Internal Revenue Service, et. al. 12 13 14 Defendants. ___________________________________ LA JOLLA GROUP II, a California general partnership, and TERRANCE FRAIZER, 15 16 DIRECTIONS FOR ADDITIONAL BRIEFING Plaintiff, 9 10 1:02-CV-6405-AWI-SMS Counter-Claimants, v. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., a New York corporation; NEVADA TRUST DEED SERVICES, INC., a Nevada corporation; LA SALLE NATIONAL BANK as TRUSTEE FOR AVONDALE HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST 1998-1, an entity form unknown; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, acting through the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; CTC REAL ESTATE SERVICES, a California corporation; ROBERT G. GONZALES, an individual; and MARISELA GONZALES, an individual, Counter-Defendants. 28 -1- 1 2 The present motion, and later application, between Plaintiff Countrywide Home 3 Loans, Inc. (“Countrywide”) and Counter-Claimants La Jolla Group II (“La Jolla”) and 4 5 6 7 Terance Frazier first came before the court on February 26, 2015. The court now issues further directions for clarification. On October 5, 2010, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded this court’s October 8 25, 2007 judgment in the matter and, among other findings, concluded that “[b]ecause 9 10 [La Jolla and Frazier] aren’t bona fide purchasers, Countrywide retains a valid lien on the 11 home. Countrywide hasn’t shown that it will be prejudiced by having to enforce this lien 12 through a judicial foreclosure proceeding. See 4 Miller & Starr § 10:32 (equitable 13 14 15 creditor’s remedy is limited to judicial foreclosure).” Doc. 43-1, p. 4-5. On remand, this court issued a judgment with nine orders including that title to the 16 subject real property be quieted in favor of La Jolla and Frazier, that this title to the 17 18 property was subject to the pre-foreclosure tax liens, and that the amount of the equitable 19 lien awarded to Countrywide consisted of the indebtness due under the deed of trust. See 20 Doc. 314. 21 22 23 24 In response to Countrywide’s motion, this court then issued an order setting the amount of the equitable lien in the sum of $342,666.07 as of January 18, 2013 and $31.9713 per diem thereafter. See Doc. 322. Subsequently, at the request of 25 26 Countrywide, the clerk of the court issued two writs of execution and an abstract of 27 judgment. See Doc. 324, 326-27, 329-30. A notice of levy was soon posted on the 28 subject real property. See Doc. 331-3., Exh. F-G. -2- 1 2 3 This court has concerns about how the rule of mandate might apply to this matter (1) generally in relation to the writs of execution and the abstract of judgment and (2) 4 5 specifically to the order setting the amount of the equitable lien. See Hall v. City of Los 6 Angeles, 697 F.3d 1059, 1067 (9th Cir. 2012). The court finds that it is appropriate for 7 the parties to submit additional briefing on these issues. 8 ORDER 9 10 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The parties file simultaneous briefings on or before May 18, 2015 and replies on 12 or before May 25, 2015 about how the rule of mandate applies to this matter (1) 13 14 generally in relation to the writs of execution and the abstract of judgment and (2) 15 specifically to the order setting the amount of the equitable lien. 16 17 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 5, 2015 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?