Article Is Written By David J. Cook, With Introductory Photo Of Winston Churchill As A Lead-In.
For practitioners interested in post-judgment enforcement and fee/interest issues, we note that David J. Cook has written an article of interest in the April 2016 edition of the Orange County Lawyer, appropriately titled “Confirming The Name And Calculating the Amount Of The Judgment.”
Among other things, this Article explores when interest runs on California state fee awards, when interest runs on fee awards for appellate fees, and when a judgment/fee award can be extinguished by a payment tender.
On the fee award interest issue, the Article cites Lucky United Properties Investment v. Lee, 213 Cal.App.4th 635, 650 (2013) [see our post on February 6, 2013] for the proposition that the interest for pre-judgment trial costs and fees runs from the date of judgment even if the awards are confirmed later in time. (However, we would refer you to the unpublished decision in Khazan v. Brayin [previously published at 206 Cal.App.4th 796] to demonstrate there is not uniformity in thinking on this subject among intermediate appellate courts, even if this case was ultimately not published “on the books.”)
However, post-judgment trial costs and fees accrued on appeal run interest from the date of entry, not the date of judgment. (Lucky, 213 Cal.App.4th at 655.)
Finally, the Article suggests that a judgment creditor faced with a check (cashier’s or otherwise) in payment of a judgment may want to reject the tender and rush down to the courthouse to file the fee motion/cost bill. (In re Conservatorship of McQueen, 59 Cal.4th 602, 615 (2014) [discussed in our July 11, 2014 post].) Although not cited, this advice may be even more appropriate if one reads the Fourth District, Division Three’s post-McQueen decision in Gray1 CPB, LLC v. SCC Acquisition, Inc., 233 Cal.App.4th 832 (2015) [reviewed in our January 28, 2015 post, after case was remanded by the state supreme court after McQueen in an initial review petition grant but with the remand decision standing after a further petition for review was denied in the first quarter of 2015].