Source: https://trellis.law/ca/motion-type/abstract-of-judgment-423
Timestamp: 2020-07-12 05:56:10
Document Index: 646392034

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 674', '§ 680', '§ 674', '§ 674', '§ 674', '§ 2924', '§ 2924', '§674']

“[A]n abstract of judgment is recorded by the prevailing party after a court has awarded judgment and it attaches to all of the losing party's ownership interests in real property in the county in which the abstract is recorded. It makes the judgment creditor a secured creditor and, by statute, can be extinguished only by the recording of an acknowledgment of satisfaction of the underlying judgment or by the judgment creditor's release of the lien.” (Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Charlton (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1066, 1069-1070.)
An abstract of judgment is not the judgment of conviction; it does not control if different from the trial court's oral judgment and may not add to or modify the judgment it purports to digest or summarize. (People v. Mesa (1975) 14 Cal.3d 466, 471.)
“For a judgment lien to be valid, an abstract of judgment must be properly recorded and contain all the information required by statute.” (Longview Internat., Inc. v. Stirling (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 985, 989.)
An abstract of judgment must provide the name of the judgment creditor. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 674(a)(4).) A judgment creditor is the person in whose favor a judgment is entered. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 680.240.) It shall also contain, among other items, “[t]he last four digits of the social security number and driver's license number of the judgment debtor if they are known to the judgment creditor. If either or both of those sets of numbers are not known to the judgment creditor, that fact shall be indicated on the abstract of judgment.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 674(a)(6).) An abstract of judgment that does not contain the SSN when known is a nullity. (Keele v. Reich (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 1129, 1133.) The court does “not rule that an abstract which does not contain a social security number is automatically void. The issue of compliance with statutory provisions for liens must be addressed on a case-by-case basis.” (Keele v. Reich (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 1129, 1132.)
Amending an Abstract of Judgment
An abstract of judgment, recorded after January 1, 1979, that does not list the social security number and driver's license number of the judgment debtor may be amended by the recording of a document entitled “Amendment to Abstract of Judgment.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 674(b).) “A recorded Amendment to Abstract of Judgment shall have priority as of the date of recordation of the original abstract of judgment, except as to any purchaser, encumbrancer, or lessee who obtained their interest after the recordation of the original abstract of judgment but prior to the recordation of the Amendment to Abstract of Judgment without actual notice of the original abstract of judgment.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 674(b).)
Correcting an Abstract of Judgment
“It is not open to question that a court has the inherent power to correct clerical errors in its records so as to make these records reflect the true facts. The power exists independently of statute and may be exercised in criminal as well as in civil cases. The power is unaffected by the pendency of an appeal or a habeas corpus proceeding. The court may correct such errors on its own motion or upon the application of the parties.” (In re Candelario (1970) 3 Cal.3d 702, 705.) Courts may correct clerical errors at any time, and appellate courts that have properly assumed jurisdiction of cases have ordered correction of abstracts of judgment that did not accurately reflect the oral judgments of sentencing courts. (People v. Boyde (1988) 46 Cal.3d 212, 256; People v. Barnes (1981) 30 Cal.3d 143, 150; People v. Brown (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1037, 1039; People v. Avila (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 416, 424; People v. Kearns (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1131.)
Expunging an Abstract of Judgment
An abstract of judgment can be only extinguished by an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment or by the judgment creditor’s release of the lien. (Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Charlton (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1066, 1070.) There is no statutory procedure for expunging an abstract of judgment. (Id.)
Despite this, courts have recognized the authority to expunge an abstract of judgment. (In re Micheal S. (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1443, 1458.) A judgment lien “is entirely dependent on the judgment” and thus “cannot exist apart from the judgment upon which it is based.” (Bulmash v. Davis (1979) 24 Cal.3d 691, 697.) “Thus, in the ordinary course of events when the judgment is vacated by court order the lien will also cease to exist, because the effect of a vacating order is to eliminate the judgment.” (Id.)
Useful Rulings on Abstract of Judgment
Motion Re: Sale of Dwelling and Issuance of OSC. The parties stipulated to a bifurcated court trial on the single issue of the validity of the LMMK Trust. On November 5, 11, and 12, 2007 a court trial was held on the issue of the validity of the LMMK Trust. After further briefings by the parties, the matter was taken under submission and on December 11, 2007 the court rendered its interlocutory ju...
..mise. The court granted a new trial on the intentional misrepresentation and false promise causes of action and denied defendant’s motion for new trial on the unjust enrichment cause of action. The second jury trial solely on the intentional misrepresentation and false promise causes of action concluded on August 31, 2010 with a jury verdict in favor of defendant on both causes of action. Judgment...
Coley v. Hecker
THE COURT. A hearing in bank was ordered in this cause after a decision thereof by department one of this court. Upon a further consideration of the cause upon such hearing we are satisfied with the decision of the department, and hereby adopt the same as the decision of the court in bank. Said decision reads as follows: "This appeal is from an order denying the demand of appellants for the chan...
..quin and that the venue is, under the provisions of section 392, Code of Civil Procedure, where said real property is situated. "The only papers offered upon the hearing in support of the motion were the complaint and the demurrers of the respective appellants, general and special. "In considering the appeal the allegations of the complaint must be taken as true. The allegations of the complaint...
Marianne Monty vs Gerald Ford et al
Nature of Proceedings: Motion Strike Santa Barbara County Superior Court Department 5 Judge Colleen K. Sterne Tentative Ruling January 28, 2013 Case: Marianne Monty, etc., v. Gerald J. Ford, et al., Lead Case No. 1385564, Matter: Motion to Strike Abstract of Judgment Tentative Ruling: The court grants the motion to strike filed by defendants Pa...
..gment, until further order of the court or resolution of Case No. 1414721. Discussion: This is a consolidated class action arising out of the merger agreement between defendant Pacific Capital Bancorp (“PCB”) and UnionBanCal Corporation (“UBC”). There are five consolidated actions. There were two other actions filed in the Court of Chancery in Delaware, where PCB was incorporated. The parties re...
Matter of 2700 Williams Way Santa Barbara CA 93105
Nature of Proceedings: Hearing: Unresolved Claims Petitioner SBS Trust Deed Network commenced this action pursuant to Civil Code § 2924j after a nonjudicial foreclosure of real property located at 2700 Williams Way. The trustee’s sale occurred on March 27, 2012. Trustors on the deed of trust were three individuals who each held an undivided one-third interest in the property as tenants-i...
..Civil Code § 2924j(d). The court notes that the order submitted and entered identifies California Reconveyance Company as petitioner. That does not appear to be accurate. Responding to the court’s suggestion in the tentative ruling issued for the September 26, 2012 hearing on this matter, petitioner has submitted an amended order correcting that. There are four claimants to the proceeds: the Uni...
109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 303 (2001) 26 Cal. 4th 181 26 P.3d 1040 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Willie Ross MITCHELL, Defendant and Appellant. No. S090791. Supreme Court of California. July 19, 2001. Linn Davis, under appointment by the Supreme Court, Norco, for Defendant and Appellant. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, David P. Druliner, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Carol Wendelin...
..order the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment or should it direct the Attorney General to ask the clerk of the trial court to make the correction? The Court of Appeal here took the latter course. We conclude that principle and practice dictate the former. We therefore reverse the Court of Appeal on this issue and remand the matter with appropriate directions. FACTUAL BACKGROUND An i...
RABBIGON ENTERPRISES LLC VS NASIR EFTEKHARI ET AL
SUBJECT: Motion to expunge abstract of judgment Moving Party: Defendant David Shen (“defendant”) Resp. Party: Plaintiff Rabbigon Enterprises, LLC (“plaintiff”) The Court DENIES the motion as MOOT, because the signed acknowledgment of satisfaction of the judgment appears sufficient to expunge the abstract of judgment. BACKGROUND: Plaintiff commenced this action on 8/3/11 against defenda...
..nd Shen. The Court awarded damages in the total amount of $4,892,977.77. Plaintiff dismissed defendant Zhu on 7/25/12. On 2/25/14, the Court granted defendant Shen’s motion to set aside default and default judgment. On 9/11/14, the Court denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. On 4/21/15, plaintiff dismissed the action with prejudice. ANALYSIS: Defendant seeks an order expunging t...
Recent Rulings on Abstract of Judgment
Civil - Unlimited (15)
Los Angeles County, CA (188)
San Diego County, CA (42)
On June 20, 2011, an abstract of judgment was issued; it was filed and recorded on August 3, 2011, with the Recorder’s Office for Los Angeles County. (Id., ¶6, Exh. 4.) On July 30, 2018, an amended abstract of judgment was issued; it was filed and recorded on August 9, 2018 with the Recorder’s Office for Los Angeles County. (Id., ¶7, Exh. 5.) On December 5, 2018, a writ of execution was issued. (Id., ¶14, Exh. 10.)
Further, the stipulation states that “In the event defendants default upon one or more of the payments required of defendants as set forth above, then plaintiff may immediately have Judgment entered against defendants for all amounts prayed as set forth in Plaintiff’s Complaint in the above-entitled action, including interest, attorney fees and costs, less any amounts already paid by defendant and obtain the issuance of any Abstract of Judgment, Writ of Execution, and any other further documentation which plaintiff
Kompa (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 130, 134–135, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 602 [levy on bank account and filing of abstract of judgment]; Merlet v. Rizzo (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 53, 64–66, 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 83 [motions for writ of sale and reconsideration]; California Physicians' Service v. Superior Court (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1321, 1330, 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 95 [defensive pleadings].)." Navellier v. Sletten (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 763, 770–771.
“[T]he sixth unreconveyed document . . . is an Abstract of Judgment, in favor of Defendant Peninsula in the amount of $87,809.86, and recorded in the Official Records of the County of Los Angeles on March 19, 2019 as Document Number 20190243187 (the ‘Peninsula Abstract’).” (Id. ¶ 25.) Plaintiff alleges that it has not received a claim to any of the surplus proceeds by Defendants Clark, Dennis, or Ho. (Id. ¶¶ 26-27, 31.)
On June 4, 2019, Assignee of Record filed an Abstract of Judgment against Defendant. On September 3, 2019, Assignee of Record filed the instant Motion to Amend the Renewal of Judgment (the “Motion”). The Motion initially came for hearing on January 8, 2020, at which time the Court found notice to be inadequate and ordered Assignee of Record to file an amended proof of service accurately reflecting the documents filed and served on Defendant within five days.
Defendant states, “Plaintiff’s recording of the abstract of judgment on March 2, 2020, caused the Trust to lose a loan that had been approved subject to a title search on the Trust properties securing the loan.” (Roebuck Decl., ¶ 11.) Defendant does not present any facts as to how the recording of the abstract of judgment caused the loss of the loan.
An Abstract of judgment was recorded on September 29, 2017. Code of Civil Procedure Section 663 provides grounds for such a motion: Incorrect or erroneous legal basis for the decision, not consistent with or supported by the facts. The Defendant’s motion states: The motion will be made on the grounds that on 2006, Jose willingly gave the vehicle back to the bank because he was not able to pay for the remaining balance of the loan amount.
DESERT RIDGE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, AN ARIZONA NON-PROFIT CORPORATION VS SIAVASH SAM MARDJAEE, ET AL.
Plaintiff’s attorney spent 4.7 hours on post-judgment collection including entering the judgment in this State, serving notice, obtaining a writ of execution and two bank levies, and recording an abstract of judgment. (See id. at ¶¶5 and Exh. A.) Thereafter, Plaintiff spent 2.5 hours drafting, filing and serving the instant Motion for Attorney’s fees. (Id. at ¶9 and Exh. A.) Additionally, Plaintiff incurred filing, service and other costs. (Ibid.)
Hecker (1928) 206 Cal. 22, 27 [“Damages for injury to the real property [i.e. slander of title] are but an incident to the action to remove the cloud wrongfully cast upon respondents' real property [i.e. quiet title] by the filing of said abstract of judgment.”].)
LANNY JAY DUGAR VS. DAVID BJORNBAK
., ¶¶3-4; Ex. 1 [3/27/18 Default Judgment]; Ex. 2 [5/7/19 Abstract of Judgment].) Thus, Defendants seek a corrected minute order to avoid any uncertainty or ambiguity with respect to the judgment. Defendants also provide the declaration of George B. Piggott as Exhibit 4 to the declaration of Ms. Bjornbak filed on April 2, 2020 and a separate declaration filed on May 20, 2020. Mr. Piggott states that he attended the January 13, 2020 hearing with Ms.
HOWARD FUCHS VS JOEL WERTMAN ET AL
Plaintiff alleged that he immediately applied for an Abstract of Judgment to prevent Defendant from transferring the Property; however, Plaintiff was unable to file an Abstract of Judgment until November 3, 2017, after the Deed of Trust had been recorded against the Property. (SAC ¶¶12, 13, Exh. D.)
No abstract of judgment was recorded at that time with the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office. In March 2006, Foothill renewed the 1996 Judgment (2006 Renewal of Judgment). While the notice of renewal of judgment and Foothill’s application were recorded, no abstract of judgment was recorded at that time. In March 2009, Mauriss acquired real property located at 1566 Delany Street, Pomona California 91768 (Property).
The abstract of judgment dated December 12, 2019, shall be vacated as to Defendant Elaine Cantu. Explanation: Renewal of judgment can be vacated on the grounds that service of the underlying complaint was not executed per statute. (See Fidelity Creditor Service, Inc. v. Brown (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 195, 202 [“Brown”].)
AMERICAN EXPRESS VS. VASQUEZ
HEARING ON MOTION TO AVOID LIEN FILED BY MIGUEL VASQUEZ * TENTATIVE RULING: * The Defendant, a debtor in bankruptcy, has filed a motion to “avoid lien” – the lien being the default judgment and abstract of judgment recorded in this case. The Defendant’s motion does not disclose a proof of service upon the Plaintiff or any legal basis for the granting of the motion. On January 16, 2020 the Defendant informally advised Department 33 that he “may” drop the motion. The motion is denied for lack of service.
STEPHEN GERSHMAN VS. YEHUDA VAKNIN
Defendant Vaknin submits his declaration stating that he did not receive actual notice of the action in time to defend himself, as he did not become aware of the case until receiving in the mail an abstract of judgment in June or July of 2019. [Vaknin Decl. ¶¶ 2, 3].
Finally, Basta expresses frustration with the court’s alleged failure to sign proposed orders and statements on appeal, a commissioner allegedly confusing “two similar, but entirely distinct, motions,” the court’s alleged failure to reject Basta’s own incorrect abstract of judgment, and the court’s alleged rejection of one of Basta’s motion filings and application for a writ of execution. (Mo. at 5-6.)
Judgment Creditor filed the instant Motion to Include Additional Names of Judgment Debtor on Writ of Execution or Abstract of Judgment on October 15, 2019. To date, no opposition has been filed.
The Court finds, however, that the notice of small claims appeal ($75) and the abstract of judgment filing fee ($41.20) were not necessary to the conduct of this litigation. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED IN PART as to Item No. 1 in the amount of $116.20. Item No. 4 (Deposition Costs).
In response to the Motion for Sale, plaintiff submitted the Abstract of Judgment to the bankruptcy court, and directly to Glen Oaks. The bankruptcy court found that plaintiff’s lien on the commercial building was valid and first in time, and that plaintiff was entitled to 50% of the net proceeds to partially satisfy the lien.
CCP §674(c)(1) states: “The abstract of judgment shall be certified in the name of the judgment debtor as listed on the judgment and may also include the additional name or names by which the judgment debtor is known as set forth in the affidavit of identity, as defined in Section 680.135, filed by the judgment creditor with the application for issuance of the abstract of judgment.
On April 27, 2016, Plaintiff recorded an Abstract of Judgment with the Los Angeles County Recorder, Document No. 20160475612.
SJO INVESTMENTS, LLC. VS MICHAEL WAYNE RIEDEL, ET AL
Plaintiff contends that the sanctions remain unpaid, and plaintiff wishes to have the clerk issue an abstract of judgment. As reflected in the minute orders, the court did not adopt the May 31, 2019 tentative ruling. The hearing was continued to June 14, 2019. On that date, the court deemed the motions for terminating sanctions moot because sanctions had previously been issued, which was on March 12, 2019. There is no court order as to sanctions in the amount asserted by plaintiff.
RANCHO BELLA VISTA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. VS AMELIA ROBERTA ESPINOSA
Plaintiff’s attorney spent 4.7 hours on post-judgment collection including entering the judgment in this State, serving notice, obtaining a writ of execution and bank levy, and recording an abstract of judgment. (See id. at ¶¶5 and Exh. A.) Thereafter, Plaintiff spent 2.5 hours drafting, filing and serving the instant Motion for Attorney’s fees. (Id. at ¶9 and Exh. A.) Additionally, Plaintiff incurred filing, service and other costs. (Ibid.)