Nikolay Machevsky

CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. California
DecidedJanuary 8, 2021
Docket2:14-bk-29611
StatusUnknown

This text of Nikolay Machevsky (Nikolay Machevsky) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Nikolay Machevsky, (Cal. 2021).

Opinion

2 FILED & ENTERED

4 JAN 08 2021

CLERK U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT 6 C Be Yn b t r a a k l c D h i es lt l r i c Dt E o Pf UC Ta Yli f Cor Ln Eia RK 7 NOT FOR PUBLICATION 8 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 LOS ANGELES DIVISION 11

13 In re: Case No. 2:14-bk-29611-RK

14 Chapter 7 NIKOLAY MACHEVSKY,

15 MEMORANDUM DECISION RE: CHAPTER 7 Debtor. TRUSTEE’S EX PARTE MOTION FOR 16 ORDER: (1) REQUIRING DEBTOR AND 17 ANY THIRD PARTIES TO IMMEDIATELY TURN OVER THE REAL PROPERTY 18 LOCATED AT 10701 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, UNIT 1802 AND 1803, LOS 19 ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90024; (2) 20 ISSUING WRIT OF EXECUTION; AND (3) DIRECTING THE UNITED STATES 21 MARSHAL TO REMOVE DEBTOR AND ANY 22 THIRD PARTIES FROM THE REAL PROPERTY, AND DEBTOR’S OPPOSITION 23 THERETO

25 On December 31, 2020, Wesley H. Avery, the duly appointed Chapter 7 Trustee 26 in this bankruptcy case (“Trustee”), filed an Ex Parte Motion for Order: (1) Requiring 27 Debtor and Any Third Parties to Immediately Turn Over the Real Property Located at 28 10701 Wilshire Boulevard, Unit 1802 and 1803, Los Angeles, California 90024; (2) 1 Issuing Writ of Execution; and (3) Directing the United States Marshal to Remove the 2 Debtor and any Third Parties from the Real Property (“Ex Parte Motion”). Docket No. 3 159. Within the prayer for relief, Trustee seeks a ruling that the Center for Disease 4 Control and Prevention (“CDC”) federal eviction moratorium (the “CDC Order”) and 5 California Assembly Bill 3088, The Tenant, Homeowner, and Small Landlord and 6 Stabilization Act of 2020; The COVID-19 Small Landlord and Homeowner Relief Act of 7 2020 (“California AB 3088”) (approved by the Governor of California and filed by the 8 Secretary of State on August 31, 2020) are inapplicable in this case. Based on the 9 court’s review of the CDC Order and California AB 3088, and the facts presented in this 10 case, the court specifically addresses this request for relief and determines these 11 eviction moratoriums are inapplicable and do not prevent Trustee from obtaining 12 possession and turnover of the subject real property in this bankruptcy case. 13 Debtor Nikolay Machevsky (“Debtor”) currently resides in the subject real 14 property which consists of two condominium units located at 10701 Wilshire Boulevard, 15 Units 1802 and 1803, Los Angeles, California 90024 (the “Real Property”). On 16 September 16, 2020, the court entered an Order (1) Approving Compromise; (2) 17 Authorizing Trustee to Transfer Real Property Free and Clear of Liens and Interests; (3) 18 Requiring Debtor to Turn Over Real Property of the Estate; and (4) Authorizing Trustee 19 to Utilize U.S. Marshal and Other Law Enforcement (the “Compromise/Transfer Order”). 20 Docket No. 54. Debtor filed a motion for reconsideration of the Compromise/Transfer 21 order which the court denied. See Docket No. 71. Pursuant to the 22 Compromise/Transfer Order, the court required Debtor and any other occupants to “(1) 23 vacate and turn over the Real Property to Trustee, including all keys, garage openers, 24 security or computer codes, combinations to locks, and any other implement or code 25 necessary to access or secure the Real Property, and (2) remove all exempt personal 26 property that belongs to Debtor and/or Other Occupant without causing material 27 damage to or leaving excess debris at the Real Property.” Compromise/Transfer Order, 28 Docket No. 54, page 8, paragraph K. If any party failed to comply with the 1 Compromise/Transfer Order, the order provided that the trustee could file an ex parte 2 motion to seek writ of possession from this court. Id. at paragraph L. Trustee filed the 3 Ex Parte Motion requesting a writ of possession of the real property. 4 Debtor filed a written opposition to the Ex Parte Motion (“Opposition”). Docket 5 No. 163. In the Opposition, Debtor made three arguments: (1) The order directing 6 Debtor and third parties to turnover keys, garage openers, security or computer codes, 7 combinations to locks, and any other implement or code necessary to access or secure 8 the Real Property is superfluous and unnecessary; (2) The writs process is governed by 9 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a)(1) and therefore, the laws of this state regarding 10 issuance of writs of possession must be followed; and (3) holding the CDC Order and 11 California AB 3088 inapplicable is not necessary because the United States Marshal’s 12 Service can interpret the CDC Order. 13 The court overrules Debtor’s opposition. First, the court does not find that the 14 language of the motion and proposed order for him to turn over the keys, security or 15 computer codes, combinations to locks, and any other implement or code necessary to 16 access or secure the Real Property is superfluous since Debtor failed to turn over these 17 items as the trustee contends, which is not disputed by Debtor. Second, Trustee seeks 18 a writ of execution for possession of the real property based on the compromise/transfer 19 order, which is not a money judgment. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a)(1) only 20 applies to the enforcement of money judgments. See In re Kerlo, 311 B.R. 256, 261 21 (Bankr, C.D. Cal. 2004), citing Hamilton v. MacDonald, 503 F.2d 1138, 1148 (9th Cir. 22 1974). The order at issue here, the Compromise/Transfer Order, is not a money 23 judgment. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 70, made applicable here by Federal Rule of 24 Bankruptcy Procedure 7070 instead applies to a turnover of possession of real property 25 to the bankruptcy trustee, such as the situation here. Id. at 261-262. In its current form, 26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 70(a) states: “If a judgment requires a party to convey 27 land, to deliver a deed or other document, or to perform any other specific act and the 28 party fails to comply within the time specified, the court may order the act to be done --- 1 at the disobedient party’s expense --- by another person appointed by the court. When 2 done, the act has the same effect if done by the party.” Here, since Debtor did not 3 comply with the court’s turnover order, the court can order the appointment of another 4 person to carry out the tasks of turnover of the Property, such as Trustee and his agents 5 and the United States Marshal. Moreover, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 70(d) 6 provides: “On application by a party who obtains a judgment or order for possession, 7 the clerk must issue a writ of execution or assistance.” Thus, the court pursuant to this 8 rule must issue the writ of execution or assistance since Trustee has a final order for 9 turnover or possession of the Property. 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) further provides that “[t]he 10 court may issue any order, process, or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to 11 carry out the provisions of this title.” See also, In re Kerlo, 311 B.R. at 262. Under this 12 statute, the court has the authority to issue a writ of execution or possession to carry out 13 the Compromise/Transfer Order.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re Kerlo
311 B.R. 256 (C.D. California, 2004)
Hamilton v. MacDonald
503 F.2d 1138 (Ninth Circuit, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Nikolay Machevsky, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nikolay-machevsky-cacb-2021.