Amended EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for AUTHORIZING INTERLOCUTORY SALE OF REAL… — USA v. Ayvazyan et al (Dkt. 1043)

Summary

The government's Amended Ex Parte Application for Order Authorizing Interlocutory Sale of Real Property Subject to Forfeiture, with a declaration of Brent A. Whittlesey, No. CR 20-00579-SVW (C.D. Cal.), Document 1043, filed 10/08/21 and marked amended to include exhibits only. The body repeats the same-day application. It seeks sale of properties in Tarzana, Glendale and Palm Desert, California, owned by Richard Ayvazyan and Marietta Tarabelian, because mortgage payments are not being made and the defendants are presently fugitives. It says preliminary orders of forfeiture were entered on September 3, 2021, and that a September 2021 payment on the Tarzana mortgage was returned for insufficient funds. Defense counsel take no position on two properties and oppose the Tarzana sale unless the loan is in default.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TRACY L. WILKISON 
 
Acting United States Attorney 
SCOTT M. GARRINGER 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Chief, Criminal Division 
JONATHAN GALATZAN 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Chief, Asset Forfeiture Section            
BRENT A. WHITTLESEY (Cal Bar No. 73493) 
DAN G. BOYLE (Cal Bar No. 332518)  
   Federal Courthouse, 14th Floor  
   312 North Spring Street 
   Los Angeles, California 90012 
   Telephone:  (213) 894-5421/2426 
   Facsimile:  (213) 894-0142 
   E-mail: Brent.Whittlesey@usdoj.gov  
 
 
 Daniel.Boyle@usdoj.gov 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiff 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
WESTERN DIVISION 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
V. 
RICHARD AYVAZYAN and 
MARIETTA TARABELIAN, 
                
 
Defendants. 
 No. CR 20-00579-SVW 
 
AMENDED 
EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER 
AUTHORIZING INTERLOCUTORY SALE OF 
REAL PROPERTY SUBJECT TO 
FORFEITURE; DECLARATION OF BRENT 
A. WHITTLESEY 
 
[PROPOSED ORDERS FOR INTERLOCUTORY 
SALE FILED CONCURRENTLY] 
 
[No Hearing Set] 
 
 (AMENDED TO INCLUDE EXHIBITS ONLY) 
 
 
 
TO DEFENDANTS MARIETTA TARABELIAN AND RICHARD AYVAZYAN AND THEIR 
ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 1043     Filed 10/08/21     Page 1 of 10   Page ID
#:17252

 
 
2 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff United States of America (“United States”) hereby 
applies ex parte for an order authorizing the sale of real properties 
owned by defendants Marietta Tarabelian and Richard Ayvazyan 
(“defendants”) and subject to forfeiture in this case. 
This ex parte application is made on the grounds that mortgage 
loan payments due on the real properties are not being made; that 
defendants are presently fugitives; and that the Court has already 
entered a preliminary order of forfeiture with respect to the 
properties.  Because loan payments are not being made, the value of 
the properties is diminishing, and consequently the properties should 
be sold immediately by the United States Marshal Service to protect 
the interest of the United States in the properties. 
 
Because defendants are presently fugitives, the United States 
has not conferred with the defendants concerning the filing of this 
application.  Consequently, the position of the defendants with 
respect to this application is not known to the plaintiff.  Counsel 
for defendants have advised plaintiff that they take no position on 
interlocutory sale of the Glendale Real Property or the Palm Desert 
Real Property and oppose the interlocutory sale of the Tarzana Real 
Property unless there is a default in payment of the loan secured by 
the Tarzana Real Property. 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 1043     Filed 10/08/21     Page 2 of 10   Page ID
#:17253

 
 
3 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dated: October 8, 2021 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
TRACY L. WILKISON 
Acting United States Attorney 
 
SCOTT M. GARRINGER 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Chief, Criminal Division 
JONATHAN GALATZAN 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Chief, Asset Forfeiture Section 
 
__/s/Brent A. Whittlesey ______ 
BRENT A. WHITTLESEY 
DAN G. BOYLE 
Assistant United States Attorneys 
Asset Forfeiture Section 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiff 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 1043     Filed 10/08/21     Page 3 of 10   Page ID
#:17254

 
 
4 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE 
APPLICATION FOR INTERLOCUTORY SALE 
 
This ex parte application is brought pursuant to Federal Rule of 
Criminal Procedure 32.2 and seeks court authorization for the 
interlocutory sale of the real property located at 4910 Topeka Drive, 
Tarzana, California (the “Tarzana Real Property”), 834 Calle La 
Primavera, Glendale, California (the “Glendale Real Property”), and 
74203 Anastacia Lane, Palm Desert, California (the “Palm Desert Real 
Property”) (collectively “the forfeited properties”).   
I. 
Factual Background 
In the First Superseding Indictment and Bill of Particulars, the 
government alleged that the forfeited properties are subject to 
forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 981, 982, and 1028 and 28 U.S.C. 
§2461(c), as proceeds of the crimes for which the defendants were 
charged in the First Superseding Indictment.  Defendants Richard 
Avayzan (“Avayzan”) and Marietta Tarabelian (“Tarabelian”) were 
convicted of numerous offenses at trial and the jury found the 
forfeiture allegations of the indictment with respect to the 
forfeited properties to be true.  On September 3, 2021, the Court 
entered preliminary orders of forfeiture with respect to the 
forfeited properties.  (See ECF 922, 923, 925, 927, 928 and 929.) 
A. 
Tarzana Real Property 
 
The Tarzana Real Property is titled in the names of Richard 
Ayvazyan and Marietta Terabelian, husband and wife as community 
property. The mortgage holder is Private Money Solutions, Inc.  
On September 15, 2021, counsel for Private Mortgage Solutions, 
Inc. (“PMS”) advised the United States that the check for the 
September 2021 monthly mortgage payment had been returned for 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 1043     Filed 10/08/21     Page 4 of 10   Page ID
#:17255

 
 
5 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
insufficient funds, and the mortgage was delinquent as a result.  
(Declaration of Brent A. Whittlesey (“Whittlesey Declaration”), ¶ 4.)   
Counsel for PMS has also advised plaintiff that the insurance 
coverage on the Tarzana Real Property has been cancelled as a result 
of nonpayment of the premium by defendants.  (Id.)   
 
Counsel for PMS has advised the United States that the 
lienholder prefers that the Tarzana Real Property be sold 
immediately.  Whittlesey Declaration ¶ 4. 
B. 
Glendale Real Property 
The Glendale Real Property is titled in the name of Luliia 
Zhadko, a single man.  Luliia Zhadko is one of the aliases for 
Richard Ayvazyan. The mortgage holder is United Wholesale Lender, 585 
South Boulevard E, Pontiac, Michigan 48341 (“UWM”).  Counsel for the 
lienholder for UWM has advised the United States that the lienholder 
prefers that the Glendale Real Property be sold immediately, provided 
that the loans secured by those properties are paid from the proceeds 
of sale.  (Whittlesey Declaration, ¶ 3.) 
C. 
Palm Desert Real Property 
The Palm Desert Real Property is titled in the name of Viktoria 
Kauichko, a single woman.  Viktoria Kauichko is an alias for Marietta 
Terabelian.  The mortgage holder is also UWM.  To date, counsel for 
UWM has not been able to confirm with the lender that he is retained 
as counsel with respect to the loan secured by the Palm Desert 
Property.   
D. 
Position of Counsel for Defendants 
Counsel for defendants has advised plaintiff that they have no 
objection to interlocutory sale of the Glendale Real Property or the 
Palm Desert Real Property because defendants do not hold title to 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 1043     Filed 10/08/21     Page 5 of 10   Page ID
#:17256

 
 
6 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
those assets.  Whittlesey Decl. ¶ 5.  Counsel further advised 
plaintiff that they object to interlocutory sale of the Tarzana Real 
Property unless there is a monetary default on the loan secured by 
the property.  Id.  
As noted above, the lienholder on the Tarzana Real Property has 
advised plaintiff that the loan is in fact in default. 
II. 
THE COURT SHOULD ORDER INTERLOCUTORY SALES AND SET THE TERMS OF 
THE SALES 
Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(7), at any time 
before entry of a final order of forfeiture, the court, in accordance 
with Rule G(7) of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and 
Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions (“Supplemental Rules”), 
may order the interlocutory sale of property alleged to be 
forfeitable. 
Supplemental Rule G(7)(b)(i)(C) empowers the court to order the 
interlocutory sale of property where, as here, the property is 
subject to a mortgage on which the owner is in default. See United 
States v. 4816 Chaffey Lane, 699 F.3d 956, 961–962 (6th Cir. 2012) 
(district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering 
interlocutory sale of yacht on which claimant had stopped paying the 
mortgage; sale preserves whatever equity claimant had in the property 
and thus does not diminish its value); United States v. 272 Old 
Montauk Highway, 298 F.R.D. 43 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (interlocutory sale is 
necessary to protect the equity in real property—for the benefit of 
government and the victims of the underlying fraud—where claimant has 
defaulted on the mortgage and additional interest is accruing daily; 
that the property is appreciating, is well maintained, and has 
significant equity makes no difference); and United States v. Gohar, 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 1043     Filed 10/08/21     Page 6 of 10   Page ID
#:17257

 
 
7 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
No. 2:18-cv-00305-GEB, 2018 WL 3031543 (E.D. Cal. June 15, 2018) 
(where criminal defendant, the record owner of real properties in a 
civil forfeiture, failed to appear after indictment and mortgage 
loans on three properties were in default, Court granted government’s 
motion for interlocutory sale under Supplemental Rule G(7) to avoid 
deterioration of properties and preserve their value).  Here there is 
ample basis to proceed with interlocutory sales.  The default in the 
payment of the mortgage on the Tarzana Real Property and the lack of 
insurance coverage threatens the interest of the United States in the 
property. 
“A sale must be made by a United States agency that has 
authority to sell the property, by the agency’s contractor, or by any 
person the court designates.”  Supplemental Rule G(7)(b)(ii).  Here, 
the government requests that the sale be conducted by the United 
States Marshals Service (“USMS”) using the procedures (and 
contractors) used by that agency to dispose of property that has been 
forfeited.  Supplemental Rule G(7)(b)(iii) requires that the 
interlocutory sale of property be conducted pursuant to 28 U.S.C.  
§ 2004 (and the procedural provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2001, relating 
to real property, which are incorporated by reference) absent an 
agreement of the parties to handle the sale differently.  Section 
2004(a) provides generally for a traditional sale on the courthouse 
steps, which is unlikely to result here in sales proceeds approaching 
the fair market value of the forfeited properties.  However, the last 
sentence of § 2004(a) provides that “such sale shall be upon such 
terms and conditions as the Court directs.”  The government believes 
that the interests of the parties and the interest of justice are 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 1043     Filed 10/08/21     Page 7 of 10   Page ID
#:17258

 
 
8 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
best served by disposing of the forfeited properties according to the 
procedures of the USMS that generally follow forfeiture. 
 
The proposed interlocutory sale orders lodged concurrently 
provide for the following procedures to be followed in connection 
with disposition of the forfeited properties.  Under the proposed 
orders the USMS is instructed to pay: (1) the expenses the USMS 
incurred in selling each property; (2) amounts due for real property 
taxes; (3) amounts due to first lienholders.  The USMS will retain 
the surplus proceeds as substitute res for the forfeited properties, 
at which time the ancillary proceeding described in 21 U.S.C.  
§ 853(n) (proceeding to determine third party interests in forfeited 
property) can be commenced against the substitute res.  
  
III.    
CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff respectfully requests that 
the Court order the interlocutory sale of the forfeited properties. 
Dated: October 8, 2021 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
TRACY L. WILKISON 
Acting United States Attorney 
 
SCOTT M. GARRINGER 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Chief, Criminal Division 
JONATHAN GALATZAN 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Chief, Asset Forfeiture Section 
 
__/s/Brent A. Whittlesey ______ 
BRENT A. WHITTLESEY 
DAN G. BOYLE 
Assistant United States Attorneys 
Asset Forfeiture Section 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiff 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 1043     Filed 10/08/21     Page 8 of 10   Page ID
#:17259

 
 
9 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF BRENT A. WHITTLESEY 
 
 
I, Brent A. Whittlesey, state: 
 
1. I am an Assistant United States Attorney for the Central 
District of California and I am one of the Assistant United States 
Attorneys responsible for the representation of plaintiff United 
States of America.  The facts set forth in this declaration are true 
and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. 
 
2.  On September 3, 2021, the Court entered preliminary orders 
of forfeiture with respect to real property referred to above as the 
Tarzana Real Property, Glendale Real Property and Palm Desert 
Property.  (ECF 922, 923, 925, 927, 928 and 929.) 
3. On September 21, 2021, I spoke by telephone with Brian 
Thomley, Esq., counsel for United Wholesale Mortgage.  Mr. Thomley 
told me that his client supports the application of the United States 
for an order authorizing the interlocutory sale of the Glendale Real 
Property and the Palm Desert Real Property.  
 
4. On September 28, 2021, I spoke by telephone with Richard J. 
Reynolds, Esq., counsel for Private Money Solutions, Inc., the lender 
that holds the mortgage loan on the Tarzana Real Property.  Mr. 
Reynolds told me that his client supports the government’s 
application for an order authorizing the interlocutory sale of the 
Tarzana Real Property.  Mr. Reynolds also told me that the loan on 
the Tarzana Real Property is a $2.1 million interest only loan that 
is due in January, 2022, and that the loan is in default as a result 
of the failure of the borrowers (the defendants) to make the payment 
of interest due on September 1, 2021.  A copy of Mr. Reynolds’ email 
to me confirming this information is attached hereto as Exhibit A.  
Mr. Reynolds subsequently advised me that the insurance coverage on 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 1043     Filed 10/08/21     Page 9 of 10   Page ID
#:17260

 
 
10 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the Tarzana Real Property has been cancelled as a result of 
nonpayment of the premiums by the defendants. 
 
5.  On September 24, 2021, I received an email from counsel for 
each of the defendants setting forth the position of counsel for 
defendants with respect to this application for interlocutory sale.  
A true and correct copy of the email is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 
 
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United 
States that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this 
declaration is executed this 30th day of September 2021, at Los 
Angeles, California. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Brent A. Whittlesey 
                   BRENT A. WHITTLESEY 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 1043     Filed 10/08/21     Page 10 of 10   Page ID
#:17261

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cacd.813904.1043.0.pdf

Size

187,805 bytes

SHA-256

d84d5b5dd73a6031c204da7a19ec67ebd32726924e4313fe060a91204480261a

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cacd.813904.1043.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)