Assignment/Judgment Enforcement: Lower Court’s Denial Of Judgment Debtor Assignee’s Request As Assigned Judgment Creditor To Include Fees/Costs In California Judgment Based On Sister State Judgment Was Erroneous

 

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    In LSREF2 APEX3, LLC v. Nomicos, Case No. G050175 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 19, 2015) (unpublished), one judgment debtor (who was jointly/severally liable and owned 10% of the property involved in the dispute) paid off a Colorado judgment which was registered as a California sister court judgment—paying off the full amount of the judgment plus interest as well as the costs and fees component which was ordered in Colorado after the Colorado “base” judgment was registered as a California sister state judgment.  Judgment creditor assigned the judgments over to the “paying” judgment debtor.  This debtor then moved to amend the California judgment to include the amount of fees/costs awarded subsequently by the Colorado court and moved to compel co-judgment debtors to compel contribution from her co-judgment debtors for all the judgment components. The lower court denied the motion to amend based on the perception that the judgment could not be amended and that the assignment extinguished the judgment.  However, the trial judge did grant the contribution motion to compel, but ordered that contribution was only due on the “base” judgment (not the fees/costs subsequent component).

    The Fourth District, Division 3, in decision penned by Presiding Justice O’Leary, reversed on both counts and remanded.

    First of all, the trial court did have jurisdiction to amend the California judgment  to include costs and fees awarded by the Colorado court.  (Aspen Internat. Capital Corp. v. Marsch, 235 Cal.App.3d 1199, 1203 (1991).)  Next, the judgment was not extinguished by its assignment to “paying” judgment debtor.  (Tucker v. Nicholson, 12 Cal.2d 427, 430 (1938); Williams v. Riehl, 127 Cal. 365, 371 (1899).)  The appellate court refused to disregard Tucker simply because it was an “old case,” with stare decisis winning out.  Last, nothing prevented “paying” judgment debtor-assignee from obtaining a contributive share order to include the costs and fees paid by the assignee, requiring a remand and new order based on the other co-judgment debtor’s proportionate interests in the property.  (Tucker, 12 Cal.2d at 433.)