Source: https://trellis.law/ca/issue-type/acknowledgement-of-satisfaction-of-judgment-299
Timestamp: 2020-07-15 03:59:10
Document Index: 694917941

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 724', '§ 724', '§ 724', '§ 724', '§724', '§724', '§724', '§724', '§724', '§ 452', '§ 724', '§ 1005', '§ 473']

Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment?
When a money judgment is satisfied, the judgment creditor shall immediately file an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 724.030; Horath v. Hess (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 456, 468.) If a judgment creditor fails to file the acknowledgment immediately, the judgment debtor may mail a demand that creditor file an acknowledgment. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 724.050.) If the judgment creditor does not comply, the judgment debtor may seek an order acknowledging satisfaction of judgment. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 724.050(d); Schumacher v. Ayerve (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1860, 1863.) Section 724.050 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides the sole statutory procedure to require a judgment creditor to file an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment or, if he or she refuses, to obtain a satisfaction of judgment entered by the court clerk. (Quintana v. Gibson (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 89, 91.)
A court may only order satisfaction of judgment when a judgment has been satisfied in fact by full payment or release. (Schumaker v. Ayerve (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1860, 1863.) “A money judgment may be satisfied by payment of the full amount required to satisfy the judgment or by acceptance by the judgment creditor of a lesser sum in full satisfaction of the judgment.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 724.010(a).) “This section has been interpreted to require the trial court to first determine whether the judgment has been satisfied in fact before ordering entry of satisfaction of judgment.” (Schumacher v. Ayerve (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1860, 1863.)
When a judgment debtor files a motion for acknowledgement of satisfaction of judgment, the court may determine whether there was an agreement for satisfaction of the judgment by payment of less than the full amount of the judgment. (Horath v. Hess (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 456, 467.) If a contract is susceptible to two different reasonable interpretations, the contract is ambiguous. (Id. at 464; Walton v. Mueller (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 161, 174.)
“Payment to a judgment creditor is governed by the cases and statutes which govern commercial transactions. Like a contract creditor, a judgment creditor may demand payment in cash.” (Long v. Cuttle Constr. Co. (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 834, 837.) Nonetheless, a judgment creditor may agree to accept some other consideration in satisfaction of the judgment. (Rettner v. Shepherd (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 943, 950.) “The acceptance of any valuable thing in discharge of the debt amounts to payment, but it is the distinct agreement of the creditor to accept the thing in discharge of the debt that gives it the character of payment. Without this, the transaction is regarded either as furnishing matter of setoff or as security collateral to the original debt, according as the subject received is in possession or in action.” (Strain v. Security Title Ins. Co. (1954) 124 Cal.App.2d 195, 200.)
A satisfaction of judgment which has been filed and entered may be set aside by appropriate proceedings and for proper cause; fraud, undue influence, and mistake are the generally recognized grounds for vacating a satisfaction of judgment. (Remillard Brick Co. v. Dandini (1950) 98 Cal. App. 2d 617, 622.) Where a satisfaction of judgment has been erroneously entered, it may be cancelled either upon motion made in the original action or by means of an independent action in equity between the parties. (Kinnison v. Guar. Liquidating Corp. (1941) 18 Cal. 2d 256, 265.) A satisfaction of judgment may be vacated and the judgment revived under appropriate circumstances. (Kachiq v. Boothe (1971) 22 Cal. App. 3d 626, 632.)
Useful Rulings on Acknowledgement of Satisfaction of Judgment
Mercy Air Service Inc vs. Schritter
Plaintiff Mercy Air Service, Inc.'s unopposed motion to set aside the Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment is granted. The Court deems the lack of opposition to the motion to be a concession as to the merits of the motion. Furthermore, a satisfaction of judgment which has been filed and entered may be set aside by appropriate proceedings and for proper cause. Fraud, undue influence, and mis...
..56, 265. A satisfaction of judgment may be vacated and the judgment revived under appropriate circumstances. Kachiq v. Boothe (1971) 22 Cal. App. 3d 626, 632. The Court is persuaded that setting aside the Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment is appropriate. This is the tentative ruling for an appearance hearing at 10:30 a.m. on Friday, August 4, 2017. If no party appears at the hearing, th...
Gordon McKay vs Jeremy Anticouni etc
Nature of Proceedings: Motion for Order Deeming Judgment Satisfied/Rtrn of Excess Proceeds/Fees & Costs Santa Barbara County Superior Court Department 5 Judge Colleen K. Sterne Tentative Ruling March 12, 2012 Case: Gordon McKay v. Jeremy Anticouni, Case No. 1341207 Matter: Defendant’s Motion for Order Deeming Judgment Satisfied Tentative Ruling: Motion denied. Discus...
..t from October 31, 2008. McKay set a debtor’s examination for Anticouni for October 4, 2010. On October 4, the parties stipulated to continue the debtor’s exam in exchange for the parties agreement that a sale of stock held by Anticouni in Make It Work, Inc., (“MIW”) could take place. On October 25, 2010, the court filed its order which provided: “In exchange for an agreement to continue the Deb...
ATTORNEY COLLECTION SERVICES, VS. PIERCE, D`ARTAGNAN D.
Loancare, LLC’s (“Loancare”) unopposed motion compelling Plaintiff Attorney Collection Services, INC (“ACS”) to comply with Loancare’s demand to acknowledge the full satisfaction of the judgment entered against Defendant D’Artagnan D’Pierce (“Pierce”) in this action is GRANTED. On May 31, 2016, the Court continued this motion to allow the moving party Loancare to establish, through declarations a...
..es, Inc. via an Order for Amendment of Judgment (RJN, Exh. 7.); (2) Gary Brown is/was an officer and sole shareholder of Attorney Collection Services, Inc. (RJN, Exhs. 8-9.; Lei Decl., Exh. A.); (3) Attorney Collection Services, LLC was cancelled by a Certificate of Cancellation (RJN, Exh 9.); (4) the former attorney of record for the Plaintiff is deceased, but the last designated agent for serv...
DALE REICHENEDER VS JENNIFER VENCILL
TENTATIVE RULING Dale Reicheneder v. Jennifer Vencill, et al. Case No. SC129766 Defendant’s Motion to Compel Judgment Creditor to Acknowledge Satisfaction of Judgment Hearing Date: 1/16/2020 Plaintiff sued defendant for unpaid legal fees. In October 2018, defendant served plaintiff with a CCP 998 offer to compromise. Plaintiff accepted, and defendant filed a proposed judgment. Plaintiff later...
..ill owes costs, interest and attorney’s fees. When a money judgment is satisfied, the judgment creditor shall immediately file an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §724.030. If a judgment creditor fails to file the acknowledgment immediately, the judgment debtor may mail a demand that creditor file an acknowledgment. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §724.050. If the judgm...
BEVERLY HILLS ESTATE VS. MARTIN WARNER ET. AL.
TENTATIVE RULING Beverly Hills Estate, LLC v. Martin Warner et al. Case No.: SC120070 Motion to Compel Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment Hearing Date: 7-30-2019 Beverly Hills Estate (BHE) filed an unlawful detainer action against Martin and Susan Warner in February 2013. A default judgment was entered in favor of BHE, which recorded an abstract of judgment on all properties owned by t...
..n of judgment. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §724.040. A court may only order satisfaction of judgment when a judgment has been satisfied in fact by full payment or release. Schumaker v. Ayerve (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1860, 1863. A vacated judgment is of no legal effect, and any lien created by a judgment that later is vacated ceases to exist. Bulmash v. Davis (1979) 24 Cal.3d 691, 697. Plaintiff is technica...
Recent Rulings on Acknowledgement of Satisfaction of Judgment
Ernest H. Goldsmith (9)
Gregory Lewis (6)
Marla J. Miller (6)
Robert Moss (8)
Ronald E. Quidachay (5)
Talmadge R. Jones (2)
Yolanda Orozco Or Georgina Torres Rizk (11)
Los Angeles County, CA (72)
San Francisco County, CA (30)
Ventura County, CA (13)
WRITERS GUILD OF AMERICA WEST INC VS CITIZEN JANE PRODUCTION
On September 13, 2019, Mitchell filed an acknowledgement of satisfaction of judgment, that judgment is satisfied in full. (09/13/19 Acknowledgment of Satisfaction.) On March 6, 2020, the appellate court issued a remittitur, attaching a copy of the original opinion of December 17, 2019.
On May 21, 2020, Judgment Creditor filed a request to take the Motion off calendar and an Acknowledgement of Satisfaction of Judgment demonstrating the Judgment was satisfied in full. (5/21/20 Notice of Request to Take Matter Off Calendar; Acknowledgement of Satisfaction of Judgment.) Accordingly, the Motion is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA COLLECTION SERVICE, INC VS, CORTE MADERA TOWING, INC,
Although plaintiff has submitted to defendant a stipulation to vacate the Acknowledgement of Satisfaction of Judgment, defendant has failed to respond, necessitating this motion, For good cause appearing pursuant, plaintist motion to vacate the Acknowledgement of Satisfaction of Judgment ﬁled October 15, 2019 is GRANTED, (See Kinm'son v.
STEPHEN P, FRECCERO
On May 11, 2020, Judgment Creditor filed an Acknowledgement of Satisfaction of Judgment, indicating the Judgment had been satisfied in full. Accordingly, Judgment Creditor’s Motion is PLACED OFF CALENDAR. Conclusion & Order For the foregoing reasons, Judgment Creditor Merrill Corp., Inc.’s Motion for an Assignment Order is PLACED OFF CALENDAR. Moving party is ordered to give notice.
JASON BACHER VS. KB HOME SACRAMENTO INC
The Court has received Plaintiffs' Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment, filed May 21, 2020, indicating that the judgment issued in this case has been satisfied in full. The Court has also received the Jointly Submitted Response to Order to Show Case re: Settlement Completion filed May 21, 2020, in which the parties indicate that the case has been resolved and request that the June 1, 2020 hearing be vacated.
On April 3, 2018, AEIC filed an Acknowledgement of Satisfaction of Judgment, stating that Sargon fully satisfied the full judgment and was released. (LB RJN, Exh. D.) Res Judicata Here, Lewis Brisbois argues that the present action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. (Motion at p. 5.) It contends that Sargon and Lewis Brisbois previously litigated the issue at hand in the interpleader action (Case No.
Defendant moves to compel plaintiff to file an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment. Plaintiff argues defendant still owes costs, interest and attorney’s fees. When a money judgment is satisfied, the judgment creditor shall immediately file an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §724.030. If a judgment creditor fails to file the acknowledgment immediately, the judgment debtor may mail a demand that creditor file an acknowledgment. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §724.050.
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY VS. LORENZO, JOSIE
Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Judgment – MOOTED by Acknowledgement of Satisfaction of Judgment filed December 6, 2019. CV-18-001613 – AUTOVEST LLC VS GORDON, DAVID – Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Judgment – GRANTED. CV-18-001619 – AUTOVEST LLC VS HARGROVE, JESSICA – Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Judgment and Dismiss Action – DENIED. This Court does not have jurisdiction to grant the relief Plaintiff requests.
WU, ET AL. V. WANG, ET AL.
Varum, et al. in San Francisco County Superior Court (the “Berger Action”) (Exhibit 12); (14) Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment in the case entitled Mirov v. Berger, et al. in San Francisco County Superior Court (Exhibit 14); and (15) proposed amended complaint in the Berger Action (Exhibit 15). All items except for Exhibits 10, 11 and 12 are either court records or recorded real property records. As such, they are proper subjects of judicial notice. (Evid. Code, § 452, subds.
SRABIAN V CHIARITO
Buehner to Compel Morris and Lucille Srabian to Issue Acknowledgement of Full Satisfaction of March 4, 2019 Judgment (or, in the Alternative, to Have Clerk Enter Same) and for Attorney’s Fees and Costs, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 724.050 Tentative Ruling: To deny the motion to compel plaintiffs and cross-defendants Morris and Lucille Srabian (“the Srabians”) to issue acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment, or, in the alternative, to have the clerk of the Court enter the same, on the ground
On June 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed a full Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment. To date, no opposition has been filed. The Court heard this motion on October 2, 2019, and continued the hearing to this date because Defendant filed no proof of service demonstrating that notice of the motion and hearing were provided to LVNV Funding. 2. Legal Standard “‘[A] void judgment can be attacked at any time by a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d).’ [Citation.]”
AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK VS. GARY SINARD
The court takes judicial notice of the fact that a full acknowledgement of satisfaction of judgment was filed by plaintiff on 11/1/19, rendering the motion moot. Clerk to give notice.
DAN FLOIT VS. WILLIAM CHAPMAN
As for the Acknowledgement of Satisfaction of Judgment, it appears DRE is not opposed to Andre filing the Acknowledgment, suggesting it agrees judgment against him as been satisfied. Andre served a CCP § 724.050 demand upon the DRE on September 23, 2019 after this Motion was filed and more than fifteen days have passed and the Acknowledgment has not been filed by DRE.
UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION VS. IBARRA
The following documents are set aside and vacated as void: Entry of Default dated January 5, 2016 (ROA # 20); Judgment entered May 4, 2017 (ROA # 25); DL-30 dated December 5, 2017 (ROA # 27); and Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment – Full filed on April 24, 2018 (ROA # 28).
On August 29, 2018, Johnson filed a Third Amended Cross-Complaint alleging Corsini breached the agreement by failing to file an Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment, or remove the lien on Johnson’s property. On August 12, 2019, Johnson filed a request to dismiss just the lien in the Third Amended Cross-Complaint. The dismissal was entered as to the entire Third Amended Cross-Complaint.
On June 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed a full Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment. To date, no opposition has been filed. The court initially notes that the motion is not accompanied by proof of service demonstrating that notice of the motion and hearing were provided to LVNV Funding. Failure to give notice of a motion is a violation of the statutory requirements but of due process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005; Jones v. Otero (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 754, 757.)
HODGE V. PEIK
Superior Court of Nevada County Tentative Ruling Truckee Branch Defendants' Motion for Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment is granted as prayed. Pursuant to CCP '724.050(d), the court clerk shall enter the Satisfaction of Judgment which was entered on 3/21/19. Defendants are awarded $1,150.00 pursuant to CCP '724.050(e), for failing to comply with the demand to enter the Satisfaction of Judgment.
Judge Robert L Tamietti
WESTLAKE SERVICES, LLC VS TONIO BLAND
On August 4, 2017, an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment was filed.
JACK VAUGHN ET AL VS BARBARA DARWISH ET AL
CITY OF SAN DIEGO VS NOTT
App. 5th 473 (2017), the 4th DCA, Div. 3 held that "the phrase 'the judgment is satisfied in full' as used in section 883, subdivision (a) means only at such time as the creditor has filed a full acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment. A judgment cannot be satisfied within the meaning of section 883, subdivision (a) until the judgment creditor is paid in full and has no other outstanding claim and the obligation of the judgment debtor has been fully extinguished." Ibid. at 482 (emphasis added).
.: SC120070 Motion to Compel Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment Hearing Date: 7-30-2019 Beverly Hills Estate (BHE) filed an unlawful detainer action against Martin and Susan Warner in February 2013. A default judgment was entered in favor of BHE, which recorded an abstract of judgment on all properties owned by the Warners on 4/25/2013. The default was later vacated by the Court of Appeal.
TESORO DEL VALLE MASTER HOMEOWNERS VS BALMAIN, FOREST K.
Plaintiff has not filed an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment. Further, even if such an acknowledgment had been filed, Defendant may still move to vacate the default and default judgment entered in this case. Plaintiff further contends that Defendant has failed to demonstrate meritorious defense. The Court disagrees. As the California Supreme Court had held, “[o]rdinarily a verified answer to a complaint’s allegations suffices to show [meritorious defense].” (Rappleyea v.
METROPOLITAN ADJUSTMENT BUREAU VS ZEILON, ROBERT L.
MOTION TO VACATE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT (CCP § 473(b)) TENTATIVE RULING: Judgment Creditor Metropolitan Adjustment Bureau Corp.’s Motion to Vacate Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment is GRANTED. ANALYSIS: I. Discussion On August 23, 2012, the Court entered a default judgment in favor of Plaintiff Creditor Metropolitan Adjustment Bureau Corp. (“Judgment Creditor”) and against Defendant Robert L. Zeilon (“Judgment Debtor”).
Runyon (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 473,** the 4th DCA, Div. 3 held that "the phrase 'the judgment is satisfied in full' as used in section 883, subdivision (a) means only at such time as the creditor has filed a full acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment. A judgment cannot be satisfied within the meaning of section 883, subdivision (a) until the judgment creditor is paid in full and has no other outstanding claim and the obligation of the judgment debtor has been fully extinguished."