Turkanis v. Price
213 Cal. App. 4th 332
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- This is the third appeal in a marital dissolution between Turkanis and Price, involving pre-marital Radman stock valuation and post-trial asset allocation.
- Two FLARPLs were recorded by Price’s former attorneys (Kramer and Spitzer) against Price’s community property to secure fees, relating to 1234 Bundy and 1250 Bundy properties.
- The trial court valued Radman at marriage, traced Radman proceeds as separate property, and allocated Bundy properties to Turkanis, with an equalization payment due from Price.
- Turkanis moved to expunge the FLARPLs after the judgment; Kramer and Spitzer challenged expungement and pursued a Borson motion for fees and an appeal.
- The court expunged the FLARPLs, denied a request for a statement of decision on that motion, and later awarded Kramer $39,000 on the Borson motion after offset considerations.
- On appeal, Kramer and Spitzer challenge the expungement, the lack of joining them as parties, the decision not to issue a statement of decision, and the fee-offset ruling under section 271.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court could expunge FLARPLs after the property had been allocated. | Kramer/Spitzer: court lacks authority to expunge post-recordation liens. | Turkanis: §2034(c) authorizes expungement of FLARPLs at any time. | Section 2034(c) authorizes expungement; court did not err. |
| Whether a division of property extinguishes valid preexisting liens on the awarded property. | Lien extinguishment should follow the property division. | Lien must be satisfied from the encumbered property regardless of allocation. | Liens remain enforceable against the awarded property; division does not automatically extinguish them. |
| Whether the court must join FLARPL‑holders as parties to motions to expunge. | Ramirez requires joining the lienholders; due process requires it. | Ramirez is inapposite; they were parties to the motion and notice was provided. | No error in not additionally joining them; Ramirez not controlling here. |
| Whether the court properly denied a request for a statement of decision on the expungement motion. | Lack of a statement of decision prejudices the fee‑holders. | A statement of decision is not required after a ruling on a motion. | No abuse of discretion; no required statement of decision. |
| Whether the Borson fee award was properly limited considering sanctions under §271. | Court should fully compensate Kramer for fees requested. | Court could offset fees under §271 given Price’s conduct and overall circumstances. | Court’s $39,000 award under §271, with consideration of conduct and circumstances, was proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Ramirez, 198 Cal.App.4th 336 (Cal.App.4th 336 (2011)) (discusses lienholder participation when vacating FLARPLs)
- Lezine v. Security Pacific Fin. Servs., Inc., 14 Cal.4th 56 (Cal. 1996) (lien follow property after division; reconfirm lien enforceability)
- Droeger v. Friedman, Sloan & Ross, 54 Cal.3d 26 (Cal. 1991) (concerning the rule on encumbrances of community property for fees)
- Kinney v. Vallentyne, 15 Cal.3d 475 (Cal. 1975) (valid liens attached to property survive division)
- In re Marriage of Mix, 14 Cal.3d 604 (Cal. 1975) (community property presumption and encumbrances)