Cases: Judgment Enforcement

  Fee Entitlement Was Justified Under CCP § 685.070(a).     After obtaining a judgment to enforce an arbitration award, judgment creditors must have been miffed when the trial court denied requests for post-judgment enforcement fee recovery.  The lower court decided that the lack of an express provision allowing for post-judgment fee recovery was dispositive.     […]

  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

  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      In Comerica Bank v. Runyon, Case No. G051364 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 7, 2016) (unpublished), Comerica obtained a judgment based on a guaranty against husband.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.,

  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  It was no less the case in Cardona v. Licher Direct Mail, Inc., Case No. B254783 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 6, 2015) (unpublished).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