According to Bedi v. McMullen a writ of possession can not be issued under an un enforceable judgment. Writ is issued with the wrong date and case number, Both are from a closed case that resulted in possession for the tenant. Judge let plaintiffs attorney evict anyway. Pointed this out to Sheriffs who called their counsel and he advised them not to evict. Back in court Judge recalls writ and tells plaintiffs attorney to get a new writ issued. New writ has the same wrong date on it when the complaint was filed. CA Evidence code section 11 may is permissive and "shall" is mandatory
(b) information required by Section 712.020, the writ of possession of real property "shall" contain the following:(4)The date the
complaint was filed in the action that resulted in the judgment of possession.
Does June14th and Aug. 27th seem like a typo to you? I have read and reread the Evidence Code the CCP and all things related to writs and the CA Evidence code section 11 may is permissive and "shall" is mandatory . Pay close atten. to what is written below, especially #4. (a)A judgment for possession of real property may be enforced by a writ of possession of real property issued pursuant to Section 712.010. The application for the writ shall provide a place to indicate that the writ applies to all tenants, subtenants, if any, name of claimants, if any, and any other occupants of the premises. (b)In addition to the information required by Section 712.020, the writ of possession of real property shall contain the following: (4)The date the complaint was filed in the action that resulted in the judgment of possession. Now go read Bedi v. McMullen and then tell me where typos fit into this, I am just trying to find out.
If the date is off but it is obvious a typo or something trivial such as a 2-3 days then it probably is enforceable. Some times small technical mistakes are harmless.
This is not a comprehensive answer and it is impossible to provide a meaningful response without a consultation. Call us for more information. 619.797.5456 www.mataelelaw.com
2 lawyers agree