{ Converted to html. The PDF is the controlling document. JM}
Case 17-05016-btb Doc 53 Entered 05/30/18 14:11:57 Page 1 of 6
Matthew D. Francis
Nevada Bar No. 6978
mfrancis@bhfs.com
Arthur A. Zorio
Nevada Bar No. 6547
azorio@bhfs.com
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP
Telephone: 775.324.4100
Facsimile: 775.333.8171
Attorneys for JED MARGOLIN
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA
BK-N-16-50644-BTB
Chapter 15
Adversary Proceeding: 17-05016-BTB
DEFENDANT
JED MARGOLIN’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
Hearing Date: June 13, 2018
Hearing Time: 2 p.m.
In Re JAZI GHOLAMREZA ZANDIAN,
Debtor.
__________________________________/
FRED SADRI, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE STAR LIVING TRUST, DATED APRIL 14, 1997; RAY KOROGHLI AND SATHSOWI T. KOROGHLI, AS MANAGING TRUSTEES FOR KOROGHLI MANAGEMENT TRUST,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JED MARGOLIN; JAZI GHOLAM REZA ZANDIAN; and all other parties claimingan interest in real properties described in this action,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
PATRICK CANET,
Counterclaimant,
v.
FRED SADRI, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE FOR THE STAR LIVING TRUST; RAY KOROGHLI,
-1-
Case 17-05016-btb Doc 53 Entered 05/30/18 14:11:57 Page 2 of 6
INDIVIDUALLY; RAY KOROGHLI AND SATHSOWI T. KOROGHLI, AS MANAGING TRUSTEES FOR KOROGHLI MANAGEMENT TRUST,
Counter-Defendants.
__________________________________/
PATRICK CANET,
Cross-Claimant,
v.
JED MARGOLIN,
Cross-Defendant.
I. INTRODUCTION
On April 12, 2018, Plaintiffs
FRED SADRI, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE STAR LIVING TRUST, DATED APRIL 14, 1997; RAY
KOROGHLI AND SATHSOWI T. KOROGHLI, AS MANAGING TRUSTEES FOR KOROGHLI MANAGEMENT
TRUST (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a Partial Joinder to Patrick Canet’s
Opposition and Countermotion for Summary Judgment Voiding Judgment Lien. Adv.
No. 37. In that Joinder, the only position Plaintiffs asserted was that an
affidavit with the information stated in NRS 17.150(4) was not filed, and Mr.
Margolin’s judgment liens should be voided.
On April 16, 2018, Plaintiffs also filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s Quiet Title/Declaratory Relief Cause of Action. Adv. 39. In this Motion, Plaintiffs assert two arguments: (1) that Mr. Margolin’s judgment liens and the subsequent execution sales
_________________________
[1] Cross-Defendant Jed Margolin’s Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment Against Cross-Claimant Patrick Canet and Opposition to Counter Motion, and all supporting documents thereto, are incorporated by reference herein. See Adv. No. 46
-2-
Case 17-05016-btb Doc 53 Entered 05/30/18 14:11:57 Page 3 of 6
only affected Zandian’s (and/or his various companies) 1/3 interest in those properties, leaving Plaintiffs’ putative 2/3 interests (if any) intact; and (2), alternatively, Mr. Margolin’s liens should be voided because an affidavit was not filed with the Washoe County Recorder containing information stated in NRS 17.150(4). For the reasons stated below, and in Adv. No. 46, Plaintiff’s Motion must be denied.[2]
II. REPLY ARGUMENTS
A. Plaintiffs’ 2/3’s Interest, if Any, is Limited to the Limited Parcels to Which They Claim An Interest Are Preserved
Jed Margolin does not dispute that his judgment liens and execution sales only affect the interests of Zandian (and/or his various companies). If Plaintiffs had 2/3rds interests in the nine parcels prior to the recordation of Mr. Margolin’s Judgment, a point that Plaintiffs must prove, then Plaintiffs’ 2/3rds interest is preserved.3 Mr. Margolin is only interested in his 1/3 interest in the nine parcels for which he has a lien by virtue of the recording of the Default Judgment in Washoe County, Nevada, and/or has title by virtue of the applicable Sheriff’s sales. See Adv. No. 26, Exhibit A; see Adv. No. 25, Exhibits B-D.
B. Mr. Margolin Properly Secured the Properties By Filing A Copy of the Judgment
Mr. Margolin undisputedly recorded his Default Judgment against Zandian, thereby creating a lien securing those properties on the dates recorded. NRS 17.150(2) (a “copy of any judgment … may be recorded in the office of the county recorder in any county, and when so recorded it becomes a lien upon all the real property of the judgment debtor not exempt from the execution in that county.”). See Adv. No. 26, Exhibit A; Adv. No. 47, Exhibit A. This point is established and any argument to the contrary is without merit.
Each of the Sheriff’s deeds state the interest executed upon is that of the judgment debtor, not that of the Plaintiffs. See, e.g. Adv. No. 40, Exs. 5 (084-130-07), 7 (084-0470-02), 9 (079
_________________________
[2] Plaintiffs filed a Statement of Undisputed Facts on April 16, 2018. See Adv. No. 40. While Mr. Margolin does not contest the statements of fact, he does contest the legal conclusions Plaintiffs allege those facts create.
[3]
Plaintiffs admit that their Stipulated Agreement was not recorded in
-3-
Case 17-05016-btb Doc 53 Entered 05/30/18 14:11:57 Page 4 of 6
150-10).
Mr. Margolin will accept
Plaintiffs representations to this Court that Plaintiffs collectively hold 2/3
interests in the 9
C. Plaintiffs’ Alternative Argument is Wholly Without Merit -- An Affidavit Is Not Required to Secure Real Property
NRS 17.150(2) makes clear that the lien comes into existence and therefore secures the real property upon the recordation of the judgment. NRS 17.150(2) states that a “transcript of the original docket or an abstract or copy of any judgment or decree of a district court of the State of Nevada or the District Court or court of the United States in and for the District of Nevada, the enforcement of which has not been stayed on appeal, certified by the clerk of the court where the judgment or decree was rendered, may be recorded in the office of the county recorder in any county, and when so recorded it becomes a lien upon all the real property of the judgment debtor not exempt from the execution in that county, owned by the judgment debtor at the time or which the judgment debtor may afterward acquire, until the lien expires.” (Emphasis added).
This conclusion is supported by
case law interpreting NRS 17.150(2). See Leven v.
Frey, 123
“It is the duty of [a] court,
when possible, to interpret provisions within a common statutory scheme to
avoid unreasonable or absurd results, thereby giving effect to the
Legislature’s intent.” S. Nevada Homebuilders
Ass’n v. Clark Cty, 121
NRS 17.150(4) simply does not state that the affidavit is required to secure a lien upon the
-4-
Case 17-05016-btb Doc 53 Entered 05/30/18 14:11:57 Page 5 of 6
property. All that is required is to record a copy of the judgment, which Mr. Margolin did. Therefore, Mr. Margolin properly perfected judgment liens upon the properties.
Ironically, Plaintiffs have not produced any evidence that the two primary documents they rely on to claim their 2/3 interest in the Property (the Judgment Confirming Arbitration Award and Stipulated Agreement - Adv. No. 40, Exhibits 10-11) were filed with an accompanying affidavit. Plaintiffs therefore admit that an affidavit is not necessary to secure a lien upon the Property at issue.
III. CONCLUSION
Mr. Margolin does not contest
Plaintiffs’ alleged rights (whatever they may be) relating to their claimed 2/3
interest in the following parcels of Property in
DATED: This 30th day of May, 2018.
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP
By: /s/Arthur A. Zorio
Matthew D. Francis
Arthur A. Zorio
Telephone: 775-324-4100
Attorneys for JED MARGOLIN
-5-
Case 17-05016-btb Doc 53 Entered 05/30/18 14:11:57 Page 6 of 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b), I certify that I am an employee of BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP, and on this 30th day of May, 2018, I served the document entitled DEFENDANT JED MARGOLIN’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFFS’ QUIET TITLE/ DECLARATORY RELIEF CAUSE OF ACTION on the parties listed below via the following:
[ ] VIA FIRST CLASS U.S. MAIL: by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Reno, Nevada, addressed as follows:
Dana Jonathon Nitz, Esq.
Yanxiong Li, Esq.
Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP
7785
W.
yli@wrightlegal.net
Jeffrey L. Harman, Esq.
HARMAN & HARTMAN
notices@bankruptcyreno.com
[ ] BY PERSONAL SERVICE: by personally hand-delivering or causing to be hand delivered by such designated individual whose particular duties include delivery of such on behalf of the firm, addressed to the individual(s) listed, signed by such individual or his/her representative accepting on his/her behalf. A receipt of copy signed and dated by such an individual confirming delivery of the document will be maintained with the document and is attached.
[ ] VIA COURIER: by delivering a copy of the document to a courier service for over-night delivery to the foregoing parties.
[X] VIA ELECTRONIC SERVICE: by electronically filing the document with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system which served the foregoing parties electronically.
/s/ Nancy R. Lindsley
Employee of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
-6-