Minor Remand Ordered For Appellate Work Scrutiny, Based On How It Was Brought.
If you search on our blog under the “Judgment Enforcement” topical bar, you will see that the next case, Quiles v. Parent, Case No. G056687 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 4, 2020) (unpublished) pops up quite often. We now post on this most recent case.
Plaintiff obtained compensatory and punitive damages in a case, with plaintiff being granted post-judgment enforcement fees of $493,017 and costs of $27,879.09. Except to look over some appellate fee/costs on remand, the 4/3 DCA affirmed in an opinion authored by Justice Fybel.
The main problem for the judgment debtor was that the judgment had not been satisfied, which led to the conclusion that post-judgment enforcement fees/costs/interest were still in play. In this area, prejudgment interest begins to run at the time judgment is entered, such that an amended judgment adding fees and costs does not start a “new clock” for purposes of interest. “No legal authority suggests the amount of that interest is wiped out instead of adjusted in light of the amendments to the original judgment as occurred here.” (Slip Op., p. 16.)
The defense argued that plaintiff never served plaintiff (versus plaintiff’s counsel) with the post-judgment fees/costs motion, but this argument did not prevail given that defendant still opposed and there was no prejudice shown by the allegedly defective service.
With respect to appellate fees/costs, the 4/3 DCA panel was careful to observe that the procedure for claiming appellate work is not governed under the Enforcement of Judgment Laws, but by CCP § 1034(b) and CRC 3.1702(c). So, there was a reversal, but without prejudice to renewing under the proper procedural regimen.