{Converted to html. The PDF is the
controlling document. JM}
Case 17-05016-btb Doc 60 Entered 07/20/18 15:49:06 Page 1 of 6
_____________________________
Honorable
Bruce T. Beesley
United
States Bankruptcy Judge
Entered on Docket
July 20, 2018
Case
No. 16-50644-BTB
Chapter
15
Adversary
No: 17-05016-BTB
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY
COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ORDER GRANTING PARTIAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AND
DENYING MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST CROSS CLAIMANT PATRICK CANET AND GRANTING COUNTER
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
In re:
PATRICK CANET and JAZI GHOLAMREZA ZANDIAN,
Debtors.
_____________________________________________/
FRED SADRI, as Trustee for the Star Living Trust, dated April 14,1997, SATHSOWI T. KOROGHLI, as Managing Trustee for Koroghli Management Trust, and RAY KOROGHLI, as Managing Trustee for Koroghli Management Trust,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JED MARGOLIN and JAZI GHOLAMREZA ZANDIAN,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________/
This matter came before the court on the Motion for Summary Judgment Against Cross-Claimant Patrick Canet, Patrick Canet’s Opposition and Counter Motion for Summary Judgment, and Star Living Trust and Koroghli Management Trust’s Partial Motion for Summary Judgement
Case 17-05016-btb Doc 60 Entered 07/20/18 15:49:06 Page 2 of 6
filed on March 21, 2018, April 11, 2018 and April 16, 2018, respectively. Docket Nos. 23, 34, and 39, respectively. The case was heard on June 13, 2018 at 2:00 PM. Yanxiong Li, Esq., Wright Findlay & Zak, LLP appeared at the hearing on behalf of Star Living Trust and Koroghli Management Trust. Jeffrey L. Hartman, Esq., Hartman & Hartman, appeared at the hearing on behalf of Patrick Canet. Arthur A. Zorio, Esq. and Matthew D. Francis Esq., Brownstein Hyatt Farber Shreck. No other appearances were made at the hearing.
The Court has reviewed and considered the Complaint for Quiet Title and Declaratory Relief, and the exhibits attached thereto, the Answer and Affirmative Defenses of Jed Margolin to the Adversary Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial, the Notice of Lis Pendens, the Answer to Complaint, the Answer to Crossclaim of Patrick Canet and Affirmative Defenses and the exhibits attached thereto, the Answer to Counterclaim of Patrick Canet, the Motion for Summary Judgment Against Cross-Claimant Patrick Canet, the Statement of Undisputed Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment Against Cross-Claimant Patrick Canet, the Declaration Of Adam P. McMillen in support of Motion for Summary Judgment Against Cross-Claimant Patrick Canet, and the exhibits attached thereto, the Declaration Of Matthew D. Francis in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment Against Cross-Claimant Patrick Canet, and the exhibits attached thereto, the Opposition and Counter Motion for Summary Judgment (the “Counter Motion”), the Partial Joinder to Patrick Canet’s Opposition and Countermotion for Summary Judgment Voiding Judgment Lien, the Partial Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s Quiet Title/Declaratory Relief Cause of Action, the Amended Statement of Undisputed Facts In Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Quiet title/Declaratory Relief Cause of Action and the exhibits attached thereto, the Reply in support of Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Counter Motion, the Declaration of Arthur Zorio in Support of Cross-Defendant Jed Margolin’s
-2-
Case 17-05016-btb Doc 60 Entered 07/20/18 15:49:06 Page 3 of 6
Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment Against Cross-Claimant Patrick Canet and Opposition to Counter Motion, and the exhibits attached thereto, the Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and the Reply in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Quiet Title/Declaratory Relief Cause of Action, and the exhibits attached thereto, and the certificates of service of these pleadings, the summonses, the Standard Discovery Plan, the Stipulation to Extend Time to File Dispositive Motions, the Stipulation to continue Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment, the Joint Motion to Extend Time to file Dispositive Motions, and the Proceeding Procedures. Docket Nos. 1, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 34, 37, 39, 42, 46, 49, 53, 54. In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 52, as adopted pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7052, the Court recorded in open court its findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of Order Granting Motion and such findings and conclusions are incorporated herein. These include, but are not limited to the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Court finds that
multiple plots of land in
a) 079-150-09 (Parcel 1);
b) 079-150-10 (Parcel 2);
c) 079-150-13 (Parcel 3);
d) 084-040-02 (Parcel 4);
e) 084-040-04 (Parcel 5);
f) 084-040-06 (Parcel 6);
g) 084-040-10 (Parcel 7);
-3-
Case 17-05016-btb Doc 60 Entered 07/20/18 15:49:06 Page 4 of 6
h) 084-130-07 (Parcel 8);
i) 084-140-17 (Parcel 9).
2. Mr. Fred Sadri (“Sadri”) is the sole trustee for the Star Living Trust (“SLT”).
3. The Court finds that SLT is
a co-owner of a one-third undivided interest in title to the Property under a
Grant Bargain and Sale Deed signed by
4. Mr. Ray Koroghli (“Mr. Koroghli”) and Sathsowi T. Koroghli (“Mrs. Koroghli”) are co-trustees for the Koroghli Management Trust (“KMT”).
5. The Court finds that KMT is a co-owner of a one-third undivided interest in title to the Property under a Quitclaim Deed signed by Mr. Koroghli, and recorded on May 12, 2009 as Instrument No. 3758659 in the Washoe County Recorder’s Office.
6. The Court finds that Mr. Gholam Reza Jazi Zandian (“Debtor”) is the owner of an undivided one-third interest in title to the Property as a co-owner with SLT and KMT.
7. The Court Finds
that on December 11, 2009, Mr. Jed Margolin (“Margolin”) filed a civil action against Debtor in the First
Judicial District for
8. SLT and KMT were not parties to this dispute.
9. The Court finds that on June 26, 2013, a default judgment was entered granting Margolin $1,495,775.74 against Debtor.
10. The Court finds that Margolin never recorded an affidavit to create his judgment lien in the manner stipulated by NRS 17.150(4).
11. The Court finds that on
April 3, 2015 Margolin caused Parcels 2, 4, and 8 of
the Property to be sold to himself by Sheriff’s
-4-
Case 17-05016-btb Doc 60 Entered 07/20/18 15:49:06 Page 5 of 6
received Sheriff’s Certificates of Sale of Real Property on the date of the sale for the three parcels.
12. The Court finds that on September 8, 2016 a Sheriff’s Deed Upon Execution of Real Property was recorded in Washoe County in favor of Margolin regarding Parcels 2, 4, 8, and APN 079-150-12.
13. The Court finds that SLT and KMT had no notice of the sales or of their right to protect their interest in title to the Property.
14. Any Finding of Fact more properly described as a Conclusion of Law shall be deemed a Conclusion of Law.
CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW
1. Notice of all Motions for Summary Judgment were properly given to Defendants.
SLT
and KMT’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Their
Claim for Quiet Title/Declaratory Relief
2. “(S)tatutes creating time or manner restrictions are
generally construed as mandatory.” Village League to Save Incline Assets, Inc. v. State ex rel. Bd. of
Equalization, 124
record at that time an affidavit of judgment(.)” “(A)t that time” is a statutory time restriction
-5-
Case 17-05016-btb Doc 60 Entered 07/20/18 15:49:06 Page 6 of 6
meaning the affidavit recordation requirement is construed as mandatory and any sale which occurred without such an affidavit is void ab initio. Further, “at that time” is a set time limitation meaning it also requires strict compliance. As such, SLT and KMT are entitled to Summary Judgment against Margolin because Margolin never recorded an affidavit and therefore did not strictly comply with NRS 17.150(4). Accordingly, SLT and KMT’s respective one-third interests in the property are affirmed and the Sheriffs’s Sales are invalid.
Margolin’s Motion for Summary Judgment Against
Cross-Claimant Patrick Canet
3. Despite Margolin’s arguments related to the ministerial act exception and Canet’s failure to participate in the discovery process, he is not entitled to summary judgment because he did not strictly comply with NRS 17.150(4) since he never recorded an affidavit with his judgment. Accordingly, the Sheriff’s sales through which he obtained an interest in the Property were invalid and any interest he may have had in the property is voided.
Canet’s Opposition and Counter Motion for Summary Judgment
4. Canet’s Counter Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted for the reasons set forth above in the analysis of SLT and KMT’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Accordingly, the Sheriff’s sales based upon the default judgment are void.
5. Any Conclusion of Law more properly described as a Finding of Fact shall be deemed a Finding of Fact.
-6-