Lee v. Rich
Annotate this Case
Howard Rich purchased a single-family residence at an execution sale conducted to satisfy a judgment against Yung-Shen Steven Lee. Rich was a third party purchaser; the plaintiff and judgment creditor was Spyglass Hill Community Association (the HOA), which managed the common interest development of which the residence was a part. After the sale, the trial court granted Lee’s motion to vacate the judgment on the ground it had been obtained by the HOA through fraud. Soon thereafter, the court granted Lee’s motion for restitution and cancelled the sheriff’s deed to Rich.
After review, the Court of Appeal reversed the order granting Lee’s motion for restitution and cancellation of the sheriff’s deed of sale, finding that Code of Civil Procedure section 701.680(a) unequivocally stated that an execution sale is “absolute and shall not be set aside for any reason.” Because Rich was not the judgment creditor, the remedies available for Lee as the judgment debtor, were recovery of the proceeds of the sale under Code of Civil Procedure section 701.680(b), or to seek equitable redemption. Lee was not entitled to equitable redemption because Rich was not guilty of unfairness, and did not manipulate the system or take undue advantage, and the record showed the property was not sold for a grossly inadequate price. "The record demonstrates, to the contrary, that Lee sought to manipulate the system."
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.