Increasing Amount Of Appellate Bond Did Not Involve Judgment Satisfaction Issue. The First District, Division 2 had to issue four opinions in what it described as “apparently interminable litigation” between property developers and rescinding purchasers of a residential property. With respect to a topic of interest to readers of our blog, Hogan v. […]
Wife Didn’t Have Standing To Contest Costs Addition, But Did Have Remedies To The Extent Her Post-Dissolution Interest Was Impacted. In Comerica Bank v. Runyon, Case No. G051364 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 7, 2016) (unpublished), Comerica obtained a judgment based on a guaranty against husband. Comerica then moved to obtain additional costs
Attorney Did Contest Small Judgment Lien Found To Have Priority and May Have Tried To Subvert Lien Through Earlier Payoff From Judgment Creditor. Don’t think that the equities of a situation—good or bad smell to things—don’t make a difference. They did in Suojanen v. USA Specialized Services, Inc., Case No. G049555 (4th Dist.,
Respondents Were Able To Supplement Lack Of Reporter’s Transcript Of Hearing Through CCP § 909; Appeal Sanctions Request By Respondents Denied. Respondents judgment debtors were awarded $14,850 in fees for their opponents’ failure to file a judgment satisfaction, with there being a fee entitlement basis through a mandatory fee-shifting statute for such a
Also Error To Not Order Contribution By Co-Judgment Debtors To Fee/Costs Component Of Judgment. In LSREF2 APEX3, LLC v. Nomicos, Case No. G050175 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 19, 2015) (unpublished), one judgment debtor (who was jointly/severally liable and owned 10% of the property involved in the dispute) paid off a Colorado judgment
Lower Court Erroneously Believed Post-Judgment Enforcement Motion Was Under Statute Allowing For Fees. Fee entitlement is always a threshold issue in attorney’s fees proceeding. It was no less the case in Cardona v. Licher Direct Mail, Inc., Case No. B254783 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 6, 2015) (unpublished). There, a judgment creditor
Recovery Not Found Excessive Given Judgment Debtor’s Obstructionist Activities, With Success Not A Factor Under CCP § 685.070. An appellate court’s overall perception of a litigant—in a word, credibility—is frequently focal as far as the result being reached. That proved very true in the next case, Kerper v. Sauer, Case No. D067430 (4th
Postjudgment Enforcement—Harris v. Otttovich, Case Nos. A139146 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 5 June 2, 2015) (unpublished). In this one, former landlords lost a wrongful eviction suit and the lower court awarded tenant $48,000 in postjudgment collection/enforcement fees under CCP § 685.040. Landlords argued that, because there was no contract with a fees
End Result Was Denial of Most Fee Recovery To Judgment Creditor, Although Routine Costs Were Allowed To The Creditor. In the companion cases of Devereaux v. Clontz, Case Nos. H037998 and H039324 (6th Dist. Apr. 30, 2015) (unpublished), judgment creditor sought attorney’s fees and costs in connection with post-judgment collection efforts against judgment
Creditor’s Action Was Not Truly Independent Suit, But Continuation Of Postjudgment Enforcement Efforts Obstructed By Third Party Holding Judgment Debtor Funds. Inequitable circumstances often dictate results in appellate cases, although the decision in ABC Money Transactions, Inc., Case No. G048363 (4th Dist., Div. 3 April 10, 2015) (unpublished) was hardly a stretch under
