Q: I am a receiver in a family law matter. There is a property held in the name of an LLC, wholly owned by one of the parties. The court has authorized me to sell the property, but the party on title refuses to sign the escrow documents and deed. While I could bring a contempt motion, that is a long, drawn out and expensive undertaking. My broker asked me why I couldn’t just ask the court to appoint me or the clerk as an elisor to sign the documents and deed. What is an elisor?
A: An “elisor” is person appointed by the court to perform functions like the execution of a deed or document. A court typically appoints an elisor to sign documents on behalf of a recalcitrant party in order to effectuate its judgments or orders where the party refuses to execute such documents. Blueberry Properties LLC v. Chow, 230 Cal. App. 4th 1017, 1020 (2014). In California, the authorization to appoint an elisor is found in C.C.P. § 128 (a)(4) which provides the court has the power: “To compel obedience to its judgments, orders, and process and to the orders of a judge out of court, in an action or proceeding pending therein.” In the Blueberry Properties case, the defendant had entered into an agreement to sell an apartment complex. She refused to complete the sale and Blueberry Properties brought an action for specific performance. The parties then settled, with the defendant agreeing to sell the property to Blueberry Properties as originally agreed to. She, however, once again failed to comply. The court then entered judgment pursuant to C.C.P. § 664.6, requiring the defendant to execute all documents necessary to complete the sale. The defendant, however, refused to execute the documents. Blueberry Properties then filed a motion to have the clerk appointed as an elisor to execute the deed and other documents, which the court granted. On appeal that order was upheld. In another very recent case, SEC v. BIC Real Estate Development Corporation et. al., 2017 WL 2619111 (E.D. Cal. 2017) (“BIC”), a receiver was appointed in an SEC enforcement action where the defendants, just prior to the receivership, had transferred fractional interests in certain real properties it owned to certain investors. The order appointing the receiver provided that all persons in possession or control of receivership assets must give control of that property to the receiver. The receiver reached out to investors holdings fractional interests in the properties and requested that they be...
