In the Matter of: City of Sacramento

25CV008603: IN THE MATTER OF: CITY OF SACRAMENTO 02/24/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Authorization to List Property for As-Is Sale and To Increase Receivers Certificate Funding in Department 53

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 53 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver

25CV008603: IN THE MATTER OF: CITY OF SACRAMENTO 02/24/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Authorization to List Property for As-Is Sale and To Increase Receivers Certificate Funding in Department 53

and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING:

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06, nor does it provide the correct address for this Court’s Dept. 53/54 or the correct time for the hearing on this matter. Moving party is directed to contact all other parties and all interested parties and advise them of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing, along with the correct address for Dept. 53/54 and the correct time for the hearing on this matter. If moving party is unable to contact all other parties and all interested parties prior to the hearing, moving party is ordered to appear at the hearing in person, by Zoom or by telephone.

The notice of motion also does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure §1010 or CRC Rule 3.1110(a), requiring the moving party to state the “grounds” for the motion presented.

Court-appointed Receiver Griswold’s motion for order authorizing an “as is” sale of the subject receivership properties and increasing the receivership certificate by $20,000 is UNOPPOSED and is GRANTED, as follows.

Factual Background

This action involves two adjoining properties owned by Respondent Victory Tabernacle of Del Paso Heights, Inc. (“Victory Tabernacle”) located at 3910 and 3912 Marysville Boulevard in Sacramento. The properties have been determined to be in violation of various code provisions and these conditions affecting health and safety have not been abated. On 9/30/2025, the Court (Judge Miadich) appointed Mr. Griswold as Receiver to bring the property into a code-compliant condition.

Receiver Griswold now seeks an order authorizing the receivership properties to be listed for sale “as is” as well as to increase the receivership certificate. According to the moving papers, the properties are “in substandard, dangerous, and dilapidated condition, with extensive fire damage and significant deterioration to the interior walls and ceilings,” as well as “unpermitted and non-code-compliant rear staircase, electrical hazards, and likely other structural deficiencies resulting from the fire damage.” The

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV008603: IN THE MATTER OF: CITY OF SACRAMENTO 02/24/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Authorization to List Property for As-Is Sale and To Increase Receivers Certificate Funding in Department 53

Receiver asserts that the cost of rehabilitation exceeds both the properties’ value and the amount the Receiver could obtain through lending. Thus, the Receiver has evaluated the options of demolishing the structure to create a vacant lot and selling the properties “as is” to a buyer contractually obligated to complete the necessary rehabilitation.

Two bids for demolition have been received, $69,000 and $123,000, but testing for and abatement of asbestos and lead will also likely be needed. A local real estate agent has estimated the properties’ post-demolition value to be roughly $125,000, while the as-is value is around $225,000.00. Receivership lenders are typically willing to lend up to approximately 50% of the improved value of a property and thus, based on an estimated land value of $125,00.00, a lender would likely lend roughly $62,500.00 to fund demolition.

However, using the lower of the two demolition bids and considering the potential additional costs for asbestos and lead testing and abatement (as well as other contingencies, insurance, fees and costs), the total cost to bring the properties into compliance via demolition and cleanout exceeds what the properties can support and consequently, the Receiver has been unable to secure a commitment from a lender to demolish the structures and clean out the properties.

As a result, the only remaining viable option to achieve compliance is an “as is” sale to a buyer who will be contractually obligated to correct all code violations within a reasonable timeframe, with the Receiver remaining in place to oversee the buyer’s progress. Once an offer is accepted and the buyer removes all contingencies, the Receiver will then return to the Court for final approval of the terms of the sale distribution of proceeds. The Receiver also recommends he be authorized to retain a licensed real estate agent to list the properties for sale with an initial list price in the range of $245,000.

The Receiver adds that since the initial $20,000 (not $25,000, as cited at Page 5:23 of the moving points & authorities) funding has been exhausted, he now seeks approval of an additional $20,000 to be applied to his ongoing fees and costs ($15,200); ongoing board-up and security expenses ($4,000); and the 4% loan fee ($800).

Discussion

The Court finds that Respondent Victory Tabernacle did not file any opposition or other written objection to the present motion, which is construed as a concession on the merits of this motion by the Receiver. (See, e.g., D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, n.4.)

The Court notes that non-party Larisa Yevtushenko filed on 1/21/2026 an opposition to

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV008603: IN THE MATTER OF: CITY OF SACRAMENTO 02/24/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Authorization to List Property for As-Is Sale and To Increase Receivers Certificate Funding in Department 53

the Receiver’s earlier ex parte application which sought the same relief now sought in the present motion, claiming that she holds “a financial interest” in the subject properties by virtue of having “a valid contract to purchase” the subject properties. As indicated in the Court’s 1/22/2026 order on that earlier ex parte application, Ms. Yevtushenko’s 1/21/2026 opposition was not considered because she is not a party to this lawsuit and even if she were a party to this proceeding (which she is not), she did not file any proof of service of her opposition on the Receiver. For the same reasons, the Court does not consider here Ms. Yevtushenko’s earlier opposition filed on 1/21/2026.

The Court also notes that non-party Yevtushenko filed on 2/20/2026 a “Supporting Declaration to Opposition to Ex Parte Application for Authorization to List Property for As-Is Sale and to Increase Receiver’s Certificate Funding.” The Court declines to consider this “Supporting Declaration” filed on 2/20/2026 because (1) as explained above, Ms. Yevtushenko is not a party to this litigation and she therefore has no legal standing to oppose the present motion; and (2) her “Supporting Declaration” was not timely filed at least nine (9) court days in advance of the 2/24/2026 hearing date as required by Code of Civil Procedure §1005(b) and in fact, was filed so late as to be filed three (3) court days after Receiver Griswold’s reply papers were due pursuant to §1005(b).

However, and importantly, nothing in this ruling on the present motion by the Receiver necessarily precludes Receiver Griswold from considering or potentially accepting any offer by non-party Yevtushenko to purchase the subject properties. Indeed, as an officer of the Court, the Receiver is duty-bound to notify this Court of any and all reasonable purchase offers and ultimately, to recommend the offer which is under the circumstances the best one. Moreover, no sale of the subject properties is final until approved and confirmed by the Court.

Finding good cause for the relief requested and coupled with the lack of any proper opposition or objection, the present motion is granted.

Having received no proper objection thereto, the Court will sign the proposed order submitted with the moving papers after correcting the reference to the Court’s “July 30, 2025 order” at Page 2:4, which reference should be to the Court’s “September 30, 2025 order.”

Moving party to provide notice of this ruling and file proof of service of same within five (5) court days.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV008603: IN THE MATTER OF: CITY OF SACRAMENTO 02/24/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Authorization to List Property for As-Is Sale and To Increase Receivers Certificate Funding in Department 53