BEHNIWAL

BEHNIWAL v. Superior Court

Good Law
133 Cal. App. 4th 1048·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 1694·2005 D.A.R. 12·2005 Daily Journal DAR 12889·35 Cal. Rptr. 3d 162
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 30, 2005G035299California885 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sills, J.

This writ proceeding (G035299) is closely related to an appeal (Behniwal v. Mix (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1027 [ 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 320 ]), in that both substantively challenge the trial court’s ruling that the prospective buyers of an Irvine condo never actually obtained a contract for its sale. The procedural aim of this writ proceeding is to preserve the status quo pending completion of the appeal, essentially by keeping a notice of lis pendens on the property, unexpunged. In more specific terms this writ proceeding seeks an order requiring the trial court to vacate an order expunging the notice of lis pendens, or, alternatively, seeks a writ of supersedeas staying the order expunging the notice of lis pendens.

The irony is, it was this court that originally ordered the trial court to expunge the lis pendens, in our published decision, Mix v. Superior Court (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 987 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 826 ]. Here is the story: The trial court originally refused to expunge the notice of lis pendens, and that decision was challenged by the “sellers,” real parties Gene C. and Jo Anne Mix. But the standard the trial court used to determine whether to expunge the notice of lis…

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.