Cases: Judgment Enforcement

Deadlines/Judgment Enforcement/Special Fee Shifting Statute (Elder Abuse): California Supreme Court “Splits The Baby” On Deciding If Appellate Fees For Elder Abuse And Fraudulent Transfer Claims Are Subject To Deadline Of Being Claimed Before Judgmen

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Judgment Enforcement, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Answers:  “No” on Elder Abuse; “Yes” on Fraudulent Transfer.             In Conservatorship of McQueen, Case No. S209376 (Cal. Supreme Court July 7 2014), the California Supreme Court faced an interesting timing issue as to when appellate fees must be filed for and sought in a post-judgment enforcement situation.  Specifically, the plaintiff prevailed on both elder […]

Arbitration/Judgment Enforcement: Parties’ “High/Low” Pre-Arbitration Agreement Enforced Where Losing Party Honored Arrangement And Was Erroneously Denied Benefit of Judgment Satisfaction Acknowledgment Procedure

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Judgment Enforcement

  Losing Party Played It Well All Along the Way.      Looks like the appellate courts have been facing a lot of post-judgment enforcement fee issues lately, as recent posts have demonstrated. Here is another one to add to the list.      Horath v. Hess, Case Nos. D063124/D063709 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 10, 2014)

Judgment Enforcement: Judgment Creditor’s Acceptance Of A Cashier’s Check Constituted A Judgment Satisfaction Notwithstanding Filing Of Motion For Substantial Postjudgment Enforcement Fees

Cases: Judgment Enforcement

  Commercial Code Section on Cashier’s Check Tender Went Hand in Hand With Judgment Enforcement Provisions.       You knew this one would be fun given the first paragraph in Gray1 CPB, LLC v. SCC Acquisitions, Inc., Case No. G047429 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 9, 2014) (published): “You cross continents and spend years trying to

Intellectual Property/Judgment Enforcement: Mandatory Fee Entitlement Statutes Garnered Fee Recovery For Prevailing Judgment Creditor In Misappropriation Of Likeness Case

Cases: Intellectual Property, Cases: Judgment Enforcement

  CCP § 685.040 Post-Enforcement Judgment Fees Are Allowable for Statutory and Contractual Fee Claims.      Appealing party was probably upset that she got hit with attorney’s fees under three mandatory fee-shifting statutes after prevailing, on the whole, and obtaining a $403,872.99 payment in satisfaction of judgment from defendant after obtaining some damages from a

Judgment Enforcement: Judgment Creditor Gets Another Chance—Denial Of Fees Against Judgment Debtors’ Sureties Reversed On Appeal

Cases: Judgment Enforcement

  Sureties’ “Contractual Only” Argument Did Not Cut It On Appeal.      Okay, our followers, this one deals with judgment enforcement. If you are interested, stay tuned—because these are indeed arcane-oriented issues. If you are not, either watch some March Madness or still read just so you maybe put something away for later use in

Judgment Enforcement: Trial Court Properly Required SLAPP Winning Litigant To File Noticed Motion To Justify Increased Costs Rather Than Simply Filing An Uncontested Post-Judgment Costs Memorandum

Cases: Judgment Enforcement

  Judgment Creditor Seeking 15 Times Increase In Fee Judgment From $21,000 to Over $300,000 Should Have to Justify Requested Increase Through Judicially-Scrutinized Notice of Motion for Fees.      Although we are a little surprised that this decision was not published, Karnazes v. Hartford, Case No. A136400 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Feb. 10, 2014) (unpublished)

Judgment Enforcement: Parties Who Were Not Original Debtor And Who Were Not In Contractual Privity With Judgment Creditor Still Liable For Post-Judgment Collection Fees For Conspiring With Original Debtor To Evade Enforcement of Judgment

Cases: Judgment Enforcement

  CCP § 685.040 Sufficiently Broad to Cover Conspiring Parties Who Were Not Original Judgment Debtor and Who Were Not Parties to the Contract Having a Fees Clause Carrying Through to the Judgment.      Judgment creditor went through a lot of litigation to finally obtain a judgment against parties neither originally the original debtor nor

Appealability/Judgment Enforcement: Because Underlying Judgment Was Not Based On Contract Or Other Statutory Bases Granting Fee Recovery, Postjudgment Fee Award Based On Simple Wording Of Judgment Did Not Confer Authority For Fee Grant

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Judgment Enforcement

  CCP § 685.040 Was Dispositive.      County of Alameda v. Ottovich, Case No. A133891 (1st Dist., Div. 3 June 17, 2013) (unpublished) is a reminder that postjudgment enforcement fee recoveries have to meet the requirements of CCP § 685.040, with the simple recitations in a judgment not providing the necessary predicate for fee entitlement.

Scroll to Top