DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
2022-01285505·orange·Civil·Partition
Hearing about 2 months agoGRANTED

Morrissey vs. Min

Motion for an Order Appointing Matthew L. Taylor as Partition Referee

Hearing date
Jun 29, 2026
Department
C11
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Browse all Petition rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffMarcia Morrissey
DefendantMin

Ruling

8 Morrissey vs. Motion for an Order Appointing Matthew L. Taylor as Partition Min Referee

2022-01285505 Plaintiff Marcia Morrissey’s unopposed motion for an order appointing Matthew L. Taylor as partition referee is granted.

On or about 7/21/25, the Court entered an Interlocutory Judgment stating that, “a qualified and bonded referee, who name shall be provided by Plaintiff, will be appointed for the purpose of managing, maintaining, and selling the Real Property.” (ROA 97.) By this motion, Plaintiff proposes the appointment of Matthew L. Taylor, a licensed attorney. (ROA 105.)

Among other qualifications and experience, Mr. Taylor attests he has “served as Receiver, Judge Pro Tem, Partition Referee and Special Master for the California Superior Court System” and has “worked directly as the Receiver and a Receiver’s agent, supervising day-today operations of properties and companies in receivership...” (Taylor Decl. at ¶¶ 2-3, Exh. A.) In his capacity as “both Receiver and Partition Referee [he has] sold dozens of real properties for the court system in the past few years” and is “currently either Receiver or Referee in more than 10 matters with several properties currently listed for private sale under court supervision.” (Taylor Decl. at ¶ 5.)

Further, Mr. Taylor attests that he is “not a party to this action,” does “not represent any parties to this action,” and is “not related to any judge of the Court by consanguinity or affinity within the third degree.” He does “not personally know any of the parties in this action.” (Taylor Decl. at ¶ 8.) Thus, the Court finds Mr. Taylor is not ineligible to serve as partition referee for the subject real property. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 873.050.)

Plaintiff shall give notice of the ruling.

9 Nystul vs. Motions to Compel Depos Airborne Systems North Withdrawn America of CA, Inc.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share