Blueberry Properties, LLC v. Chow
230 Cal. App. 4th 1017
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- In 2011 Chow agreed to sell an apartment complex at 1242 Lilac Place to Blueberry Properties but later refused to complete the sale and returned escrow funds.
- Blueberry sued for specific performance; in July 2012 the parties settled and Chow agreed to transfer the property under the terms of the original purchase agreement.
- Chow refused to sign documents necessary to reopen escrow and complete the transfer.
- In April 2013 the trial court entered judgment under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6 enforcing the settlement, ordering Chow to execute all documents to consummate the sale.
- After Chow again refused to sign escrow documents, Blueberry asked the court to appoint the court clerk as an elisor to execute the escrow documents on Chow’s behalf; the trial court granted the request.
- Chow appealed only the post-judgment order appointing the elisor; she alleged unrelated fraud but did not timely appeal the § 664.6 judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court could appoint an elisor to sign escrow documents on behalf of a recalcitrant defendant to effectuate a § 664.6 judgment | Court may appoint an elisor to enforce its judgment and compel compliance; appointment necessary to complete sale | Chow contends (generally) fraud/forgery by Blueberry’s CEO and refuses to sign escrow documents | Affirmed — appointment of clerk as elisor was authorized and reasonable under CCP § 128(a)(4) to compel obedience to the court’s judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Rayan v. Dykeman, 224 Cal.App.3d 1629 (elisor appointment to sign documents to effect property transfer is authorized to compel obedience to court orders)
- Venice Canals Resident Home Owners Assn. v. Superior Court, 72 Cal.App.3d 675 (trial court’s inherent power to control litigation and prevent misuse of process)
- Stull v. Sparrow, 92 Cal.App.4th 860 (standard of review: abuse of discretion for trial court’s exercise of inherent powers)
- In re Marriage of Geraci, 144 Cal.App.4th 1278 (same: discretionary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)