Judgment Debtors’ Additional Fees Were a “Self-Inflicted Wound,” So To Speak.
Pacific Western Bank v. Prospect Village LP, Case Nos. G045790 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 17, 2013) (unpublished), authored on behalf of a 3-0 panel by Justice Moore, is categorized under our estoppel category, although it is also a “self-inflicted wound” case.
188-. Library of Congress.
In this one, lender obtained a hefty judgment against obligor on a promissory note, guarantors under guaranties, and affiliated family trusts. The problem with this judgment was that a trust cannot be a judgment debtor under CCP § 680.25. (Portico Mgt. Group, LLC v. Harrison, 202 Cal.App.4th 464, 473 (2011).) Although lender had already been awarded over $485,000 in fees and costs/disbursements under fees clauses the first time around, lender was granted an additional $19,139 in fees for successfully moving to add trustees of the trust as judgment debtors in lieu of the trusts.
The defense appellate challenge to the additional fee award was unavailing based on the “self-inflicted wound” theory. The defense made a superficially attractive argument that lender “invited” the error by drafting the erroneous jury verdict including the trusts. However, the record demonstrated that lender had attempted to correct this error long ago, but the defense defeated the cure effort by arguing that it was transparent the trustees in representative capacities were the target and then “shifted position” by arguing the judgment was void by naming the trusts as judgment debtors. So, the appellate court would have none of it; the shifting in positions was damning and justified lender’s efforts to get this mess cleaned up–meaning more fees were proper in achieving the “clean up” result.
