Judgment Enforcement: Wife Had No Standing To Challenge Added Post-Judgment Enforcement Costs Added To Judgment Obtained Against Husband

 

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     In Comerica Bank v. Runyon, Case No. G051364 (4^th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 7, 2016) (unpublished), Comerica obtained a judgment based on a guaranty against husband.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’s fees) in a post-cost memorandum under Code of Civil Procedure section 685.040 (which allows either a costs memo or motion procedure), with husband never objecting or moving to tax costs. The trial judge allowed the additional fees to be added to the judgment, over wife’s objection through a motion to tax costs that the order was impacting her post-dissolution interest as a “non-party intended intervenor.” The lower court found she had no standing to contest the simple costs memorandum addition of post-judgment enforcement fees which were assessed only against husband.

     Wife’s appeal did not persuade the appellate court otherwise, in a 3-0 decision authored by Justice Ikola. Post-judgment enforcement statutes governed, with the key one (CCP § 685.070(c)) indicating only the judgment debtor—in this case, husband--could move to tax costs under the post-judgment costs memo procedure. Husband never did so, with wife not having standing to contest through a motion to tax costs. However, she was not without remedies: she could make a third-party claim under CCP § 720.110(a) or could contest the appropriate distribution of execution sale proceeds under CCP § 701.830.