KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS, N.V., a Netherlands corporation v. Kxd Technology, Inc.;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
*
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS
ELECTRONICS, N.V., a Netherlands
corporation,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KXD TECHNOLOGY, INC.; et al.,
Defendants,
and
JINGYI LUO, aka James Luo,
Defendant - Appellant,
WILLA LIU,
Real-party-in-interest -
Appellant.
No. 08-55931
D.C. No. 2:07-cv-06117-AHS
MEMORANDUM *
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Patrick J. Walsh, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
FILED
NOV 20 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 4 --

The Honorable Louis H. Pollak, Senior United States District Judge**
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
2
Argued and Submitted October 5, 2009
Pasadena, California
Before: KLEINFELD and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and POLLAK, District**
Judge.
Appellants, Jingyi Luo and Willa Liu, appeal the denial of a $75,000
homestead exemption on their house, which Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh
ordered to be sold for the purpose of satisfying a civil contempt judgment against
Luo from the District of Nevada.
Magistrate Judge Walsh’s order stated that a homestead exemption was not
recorded before the judgment lien attached and, therefore, the homestead
exemption was invalid. The order states that the judgment lien attached when Luo
was served with notice of a debtor’s examination.
On the basis of the current record, we find that the judgment lien was not
superior to the homestead exemption. Willa Liu, Luo’s wife at the time of the
order, recorded a homestead declaration on October 9, 2007. Recording a
homestead declaration protects a specified amount in the event of a voluntary or
forced sale of a home. See CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 704.910 et seq. (West 2009).

-- 2 of 4 --

Based on the current record it cannot be determined with certainty when, or1
if, an abstract of judgment was recorded. The record contains an abstract of
judgment which is dated March 14, 2008, and states “WHEN RECORDED MAIL
TO” appellee’s counsel. This document, if it is the recorded abstract of judgment,
indicates that a judgment lien would not have attached to the property until at least
March 14, 2008, more than five months subsequent to the recording of a
homestead declaration by Liu.
3
Under California law, a judgment lien does not attach to real property until an
abstract of the judgment has been recorded. CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 697.310(a)
(West 2009); Tassone v. Tovar, 28 Cal. App. 4th 765, 769 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994)
(stating that a judgment “as an unrecorded document” has “no legal effect on the
property”). In addition, the property may be subject to an automatic homestead,
which applies in the event of a forced sale of a primary dwelling without the
prerequisite of filing a homestead declaration. See CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE §
704.710 et seq. (West 2009). Contrary to the Magistrate Judge’s order, the service
of notice for a debtor’s examination did not affect the appellants’ entitlement to a
homestead exemption because a judgment lien does not attach until an abstract of
judgment is recorded.1
Appellee Philips argued that fraudulent conduct by Luo and Liu should
render them ineligible to claim a homestead exemption. Because the record lacks
sufficient evidence of the alleged fraudulent conduct, we will not address Philips’

-- 3 of 4 --

4
arguments, which were first raised on appeal. See Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957,
961 (9th Cir. 1999) (“Because we generally do not consider arguments that were
not raised below and because this new issue is not purely legal, we refuse to
entertain it.”).
The Magistrate Judge’s order lacks a basis in the record and California law,
and failed to provide sufficient grounds for its denial of the claim of homestead
exemption.
REVERSED and REMANDED.

-- 4 of 4 --