Holt

Holt v. Tator CA2/6

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 13, 2025B343529California1,189 words

Opinion

Opinion

FACTS

Valentine and Christine Rutherford owned a parcel of property in Ojai. A dispute with Gary Holt resulted in multiple lawsuits. Attorney Malcom Tator represented the Rutherfords under a retainer agreement that specified Tator’s hourly rate and scope of services. During the course of the litigation, the Rutherfords became unable to pay Tator’s fees. Tator agreed to continue to represent them in exchange for a note and trust deed secured by the property for a $78,382.20 fee then due, plus any future fees. The note would mature 75 days after the litigation ended. The trust deed was recorded in August 2012. The note carried no interest. Holt ultimately obtained a judgment against the Rutherfords for $181,000 in 2015. Holt recorded an abstract of judgment, giving him a judgment lien on the property. (Code Civ. Proc., § 697.410, subd. (a).) In 2020, Holt filed an action against Christine Rutherford and Tator seeking to enforce the 2015 judgment through a sheriff’s sale and to invalidate Tator’s 2012 deed of trust, as well as a deed of trust Tator recorded in 2016. The trial court found that Holt had a secured interest in the property through his recording of the abstract of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.